Hello, Myrhonon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — MusikAnimaltalk 22:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, what do you mean You cannot steal land like that ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a comment about the area being stolen from the indigenous people. The borders are signs of that. The point is that borders have nothing to do with the Cascade range, so an updated map shows things as they actually are, rather than how we see the land as. Myrhonon (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Myrhonon, I started a discussion about the practice of replacing distribution / range maps with borderless versions at WikiProject Tree of Life. Let's please see what the community at large thinks about these types of edits before replacing more species / taxon range maps with borderless versions. (Please provide input there, rather than here.) Thank you! —Hyperik⌜talk⌟ 00:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit you are editing against the consensus at the above WikiProject Tree of Life discussion. —Hyperik⌜talk⌟ 18:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Has any discussion occurred regarding your proposal to replace maps with versions that hide national borders? If not, you need to stop making mass changes until you have consensus from a central discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Myrhonon: You have made three edits since my comment. I am asking a serious question: has there been a discussion showing support for your changes? Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I consider my edit on Afro-Eurasia legitimate. This is not a range map, and national borders do not help to determine any location. Thus I say it does not violate anything. Myrhonon (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to assume good faith. It seems that you've come to Wikipedia to push a point of view on the world not having borders that do in fact exist. In addition it also seems you may be here to promote maps from Decolonial Atlas, which is basically just someone's blog and whos map accuracy is often called into question in the comments section of that site with no response. It doesn't appear that decolonialatlas.wordpress.com is a reliable site and you're just pushing their maps here. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. If you wish to right great wrongs you should start a blog or find another site. It appears almost every edit you've made on Wikipedia has been reverted by dozens of different editors. Canterbury Tailtalk 16:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Borders exist in the same way fictional characters exist. They are on maps, not in the places there are maps of. Therefore this is completely factual. It is unambiguous that borders are only in our heads, they are only ideas. The fact that people think they can't understand the world without borders is a sign of bias. After all, neutral point of view. The lack of sources from Decolonial Atlas is an understandable issue, but arguments 1 and 3 about the edit on the Irish language article are useless because it is about the Irish language, and again, "borders are important" is just an assumption, it's a secondary idea to the factual reality of what the article is about. There's also this map. Myrhonon (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to say it but borders are often very physical things. You've clearly not seen the borders between many countries; US and Mexico, US and Canada, India and Pakistan, heck even Northern Ireland and Ireland has an obvious and clearly marked border. In most of the world borders are actually a very physical thing. Additionally they allow people to put things into perspective, it's not a sign of bias and it's not a violation of NPOV to have a map with a border to contextualize things. Canterbury Tailtalk 15:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well have the Great Wall of China on a map like that, no? Or every city? Look at the Blue Marble picture, does that have any borders? Their way of putting things into perspective is based on their own ideas of what the world is with human constructions rather than actual geography. We don't need to further advocate the idea that humanity needs to be divided. Myrhonon (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you wish to try and put more of your borderless maps into Wikipedia then please get consensus on the talk pages beforehand as your edits are now just being disruptive. At this point with edits like this you are seemingly just here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia but to push a point. If you continue this pattern of editing you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I notice this is a pattern you have continued across multiple Wikipedias and Commons sites, some of which have blocked you, to similar responses. So it's clear you're only interested in making a point and fixing some perceived injustice and not in improving this project. Let me be clear. If you continue to make edits removing borders and other useful information from Wikipedia, without first obtaining consensus, you will be blocked. If you continue with edit summaries as in the above edit, you will be blocked. Canterbury Tailtalk 13:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'll still add the facts. Having borders on the article about the Americas itself is one thing, but having them on the article on Indigenous peoples of the continent is another. Putting them there deliberately is a clear political statement that says states are the rightful owners of the continents and Indigenous people are not. Not having them there is the NPOV option, regardless of whether or not my edit reason has a "point". If the point is "stealing Indigenous land is wrong" then that's a perfectly acceptable point. The edit reason didn't even say "states shouldn't exist" or anything like that, it said they're irrelevant. So your edit is offensive to Indigenous peoples. Myrhonon (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
Please stop your disruptive editing.
