User talk:Mill-John

Hi Mill-John! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks ;) Mill-John (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

"Shut your fucking mouth" has no place on Wikipedia Acroterion (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  Acroterion (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Since it's now clear that your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to promote the racist views of Richard Lynn, you're blocked indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Note, I considered doing this as an arbitration enforcement block, potentially under both gender-related issues and race and intelligence, but decided that the editor's aggressive conduct, LLM-generated arguments, and singular focus on Lynn was enough for a regular administrative action. However, conversion to an arbitration enforcement block is on the table. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your confirmation of extreme political biaises. I don' t even understant how we let political activists like you in position of censorship on Wikipedia, it's incredibly sad. Basically race and sex are identical and what is contradicting your litturgy is banned, ok. Perhaps YOUR place is not in an encyclopedia but is egalitarian political party? An encyclopedia should be about truth. Reaching egalitarian conclusions per se is about ideology. Mill-John (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I suppose we should also banned Charles Darwin and basically all scientifics who dare to highligh any race or sex variations. Great encyclopedic behavior. Sorry to have focused on fact and not equality. Mill-John (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mill-John (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I am requesting review of the indefinite NOTHERE block imposed by Acroterion. I do not believe my editing history establishes that I am “clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.” I have been agressive once as a reaction to systematic agression I receive myself! My recent activity has principally concerned the article Sex differences in intelligence. I attempted to discuss its sourcing on the article talk page and, after disagreement about those discussions, used Wikipedia noticeboards to seek outside review. My FTN post identified specific peer-reviewed publications concerning WAIS, Raven's Progressive Matrices, g, and neurodevelopment and asked other editors to examine whether the article represents the literature appropriately. I have expressed my disagreement strongly, including my belief that the current article is ideologically imbalanced. However, expressing a strong position in a content dispute is different from being here for a purpose unrelated to building the encyclopedia. My objective has been to change encyclopedic content through discussion and sourcing, not through vandalism or disruption. I would therefore appreciate an uninvolved administrator reviewing the actual edits and explaining which conduct supports an indefinite NOTHERE block. If some of my wording was considered overly combative, I am willing to keep future discussion focused on sources, content and policy and to avoid personal attacks. I ask that the indefinite sitewide block be lifted. Mill-John (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm going to keep this short and blunt. You aren't welcome to contribute here. Revoking TPA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Suggestion to closing admin: In addition to declining this obviously unserious unblock request I strongly recommend that you revoke TPA to prevent any further attempts at soapboxing, kvetching and trolling here. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)