| Revision as of 23:30, 6 December 2006 editFilll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,790 edits →Black People← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:07, 7 December 2006 edit undoLukas19 (talk | contribs)1,308 edits →Thulean/Lucas discussionNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| 1) So, do you have any other example of me "distorting scientific research to promote my racialist POV pushing", besides English People article? And your interpretation there is still questionable.... | 1) So, do you have any other example of me "distorting scientific research to promote my racialist POV pushing", besides English People article? And your interpretation there is still questionable.... | ||
| :Do I need any? Are you asking me to look through your edit history? I will if you like. I have not interpreted these data, I have merely read the paper and commented on the conclusions they have drawn, none of which support your claim. If you think they do then you are free to explain why on the English people talk page. But essentially I am right and I think your edit is totally unsupported by the citation you gave. Even the quote you provided was irrelevant to the article. This is an article about the English ethnic group, the paper you cited made no mention of this group, or its origins. ] 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | :Do I need any? Are you asking me to look through your edit history? I will if you like. I have not interpreted these data, I have merely read the paper and commented on the conclusions they have drawn, none of which support your claim. If you think they do then you are free to explain why on the English people talk page. But essentially I am right and I think your edit is totally unsupported by the citation you gave. Even the quote you provided was irrelevant to the article. This is an article about the English ethnic group, the paper you cited made no mention of this group, or its origins. ] 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Yes, look at my history and tell me when I "distorting scientific research to promote my racialist POV pushing". As for English people, I already explained myself ] 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 2) "It is a matter of your edit history that you have used spurious "warns" against people in the past." This is another example of your uncivil behavior composed of unjustified, incorrect and stupid accusations. | 2) "It is a matter of your edit history that you have used spurious "warns" against people in the past." This is another example of your uncivil behavior composed of unjustified, incorrect and stupid accusations. | ||
| :Are you calling me stupid again? I do not understand how the link to the edit history of your previous user account (]) is relevant here, it has nothing to do with me at all, I was totally uninvolved. So why are you including this ''evidence''? You accused editor ] of vandalism, when he had made a good faith edit to ]. His edit may have been misguided, I don't know, but it was certainly not vandalism. You should not use vandalism warnings when you have a content dispute. You accused ] of vandalism over another content dispute at ], when you engaged in an edit war with him. So my accusations are not unjustified, they are not incorrect, and if you are calling me stupid what do you think that is? ] 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | :Are you calling me stupid again? I do not understand how the link to the edit history of your previous user account (]) is relevant here, it has nothing to do with me at all, I was totally uninvolved. So why are you including this ''evidence''? You accused editor ] of vandalism, when he had made a good faith edit to ]. His edit may have been misguided, I don't know, but it was certainly not vandalism. You should not use vandalism warnings when you have a content dispute. You accused ] of vandalism over another content dispute at ], when you engaged in an edit war with him. So my accusations are not unjustified, they are not incorrect, and if you are calling me stupid what do you think that is? ] 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::No I didnt call you stupid. I stand by my those two warnings. ] was already warned by another editor. ] 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 3) Another example of your uncivil behaviour: "I'm unconcerned about this, you will almost certainly leave wikipedia long before I do. I have seen POV pushers...". This can be also considered as a personal attack now that you've said this several times. See ]: | 3) Another example of your uncivil behaviour: "I'm unconcerned about this, you will almost certainly leave wikipedia long before I do. I have seen POV pushers...". This can be also considered as a personal attack now that you've said this several times. See ]: | ||
| Line 41: | Line 45: | ||
| :You can consider it what you like, it is not a personal attack. I just said that I am not concerned, you do not intimidate me, how can it be an attack on you, do you think that I should be concerned by this, and that by being unconcerned somehow I am attacking you? Just about any disagreement can be "considered" a personal attack, it doesn't mean that impartial users will think it is an attack. Misplaced Pages is full of people disagreeing, most people do not consider a content disagereement a personal attack or vandalism. Most people do not consider being called a POV pusher a personal attack. It's not a personal attack when what I say is true, I say it with no malice. Calling someone stupid, now that's a personal attack. ] 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | :You can consider it what you like, it is not a personal attack. I just said that I am not concerned, you do not intimidate me, how can it be an attack on you, do you think that I should be concerned by this, and that by being unconcerned somehow I am attacking you? Just about any disagreement can be "considered" a personal attack, it doesn't mean that impartial users will think it is an attack. Misplaced Pages is full of people disagreeing, most people do not consider a content disagereement a personal attack or vandalism. Most people do not consider being called a POV pusher a personal attack. It's not a personal attack when what I say is true, I say it with no malice. Calling someone stupid, now that's a personal attack. ] 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Whatever. If you continue with things like: | |||
| "think outside of your narrow racialist perspective." | |||
| "Distorting biomedical research to try to support your dodgy racialist ideas is what you seem to do best" | |||
| We can ask admins if they are personal attacks or not. I still maintain I havent distorted any research, let alone made it consistent. ] 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 4) "Unless my memory is faulty you have accused good faith editors of vandalism, when it is clear that they have not engaged in vandalism, and you have accused people of personal attacks before just because they happen to disagree with you." Your memory is faulty. I again note that you accuse others even when you admit your memory might be faulty. The least you can do would be to limit your annoying behaviour of throwing accusations about things which '''you''' are sure of... ] 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | 4) "Unless my memory is faulty you have accused good faith editors of vandalism, when it is clear that they have not engaged in vandalism, and you have accused people of personal attacks before just because they happen to disagree with you." Your memory is faulty. I again note that you accuse others even when you admit your memory might be faulty. The least you can do would be to limit your annoying behaviour of throwing accusations about things which '''you''' are sure of... ] 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :See above, where I have provided evidence of you accusing good faith editors of vandalism. No one else would consider these edits vandalism, they are content disputes, nothing more and nothing less. You have also accused both myself and Sugaar of "personal attacks", but I note in the RfC that the majority of people there do not consider Sugaar's posts personal attacks, but merely a healthy scepticism of your motivation. ] 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | :See above, where I have provided evidence of you accusing good faith editors of vandalism. No one else would consider these edits vandalism, they are content disputes, nothing more and nothing less. You have also accused both myself and Sugaar of "personal attacks", but I note in the RfC that the majority of people there do not consider Sugaar's posts personal attacks, but merely a healthy scepticism of your motivation. ] 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::And I note it wasnt a majority. ] 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Line 52: | Line 67: | ||
| me: "This is another example of your uncivil behavior composed of unjustified, incorrect and stupid accusations". Is your name "accusations"? | me: "This is another example of your uncivil behavior composed of unjustified, incorrect and stupid accusations". Is your name "accusations"? | ||
| *Are you trying to provoke me? Or are you trying to be funny? I can't decide. I asked if you were calling me stupid, I never said you were calling me stupid. I wanted clarification, and you have called me stupid it before. Indeed you have accused another editor of making idiotic accusations over at Sugaars RfC and he assumed you were calling him an idiot so there's a pattern of abuse here. Most native speakers of English would interpret someone calling their actions stupid as equivalent to calling them stupid. Maybe you didn't know. Never mind. I note that you have avoided answering. I wonder why that would be? ] 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | *Are you trying to provoke me? Or are you trying to be funny? I can't decide. I asked if you were calling me stupid, I never said you were calling me stupid. I wanted clarification, and you have called me stupid it before. Indeed you have accused another editor of making idiotic accusations over at Sugaars RfC and he assumed you were calling him an idiot so there's a pattern of abuse here. Most native speakers of English would interpret someone calling their actions stupid as equivalent to calling them stupid. Maybe you didn't know. Never mind. I note that you have avoided answering. I wonder why that would be? ] 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Are you trying to provoke me when you keep mispelling my nick? And I had answered that editor . ] 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Alun: "This is an article about the English ethnic group, the paper you cited made no mention of this group....." | Alun: "This is an article about the English ethnic group, the paper you cited made no mention of this group....." | ||
| Line 58: | Line 75: | ||
| *Article, section ''Materials and methods'' <blockquote><big><big>European Americans of different regional European origins (681 participants), East Asian Americans (13), African Americans (22), South Asian Americans (48), Amerindians (48), and Swedish (92), Finnish (13), Italian (91), Portuguese (3), southern France (1), and Spanish participants (82) were included in this study......The Italian participants were normal healthy volunteers recruited from throughout Italy: 38 from northern Italy, 23 from central Italy, and 30 from southern Italy. The Swedish and Finnish participants were healthy normal controls collected in these countries. The other participants recruited in southwestern Europe included 86 from Spain, three from Portugal, and one from southern France. Of the Spanish participants, there were 43 from northern Spain, 12 from central Spain, and 19 from southern Spain......For the '''European Americans, grandparental information was available for the majority of the participants. These included the following self-identifier classifications of grandparents: western European (United Kingdom,''' northern France, Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland), eastern European (Russia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Czech Republic), central European (Germany, Austria, and Hungary), southern European (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and southern France), Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland), and eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and Albania), Sephardic Jewish American, and White French Canadian. All participants with any reported mixed-continental origins (e.g., African) were excluded.</big></big></blockquote> so no actual samples from England (or the UK) were used, and US citizens self identified as having grandparents from the United Kingdom, not England. The samples were exclusively from '''US citizens''' who had self identifyer grandparents '''from the United Kingdom'''. Clearly in the abstract of the article they have mistakenly conflated England with the UK, it is very common for foreigners to do this. Did you actually read the article? Not checking where the samples actually come from is a bit of a blunder, how can they say anything about England when no samples were collected there? ] 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | *Article, section ''Materials and methods'' <blockquote><big><big>European Americans of different regional European origins (681 participants), East Asian Americans (13), African Americans (22), South Asian Americans (48), Amerindians (48), and Swedish (92), Finnish (13), Italian (91), Portuguese (3), southern France (1), and Spanish participants (82) were included in this study......The Italian participants were normal healthy volunteers recruited from throughout Italy: 38 from northern Italy, 23 from central Italy, and 30 from southern Italy. The Swedish and Finnish participants were healthy normal controls collected in these countries. The other participants recruited in southwestern Europe included 86 from Spain, three from Portugal, and one from southern France. Of the Spanish participants, there were 43 from northern Spain, 12 from central Spain, and 19 from southern Spain......For the '''European Americans, grandparental information was available for the majority of the participants. These included the following self-identifier classifications of grandparents: western European (United Kingdom,''' northern France, Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland), eastern European (Russia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Czech Republic), central European (Germany, Austria, and Hungary), southern European (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and southern France), Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland), and eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and Albania), Sephardic Jewish American, and White French Canadian. All participants with any reported mixed-continental origins (e.g., African) were excluded.</big></big></blockquote> so no actual samples from England (or the UK) were used, and US citizens self identified as having grandparents from the United Kingdom, not England. The samples were exclusively from '''US citizens''' who had self identifyer grandparents '''from the United Kingdom'''. Clearly in the abstract of the article they have mistakenly conflated England with the UK, it is very common for foreigners to do this. Did you actually read the article? Not checking where the samples actually come from is a bit of a blunder, how can they say anything about England when no samples were collected there? ] 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::If Americans of English ancestry have no link to the English, then why US English population is included in the table in ]?? ] 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Some people of English ancestry may not be ethnic English but ancestry here is relevant to the discussion about genetics of ethnic English. ] 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | Some people of English ancestry may not be ethnic English but ancestry here is relevant to the discussion about genetics of ethnic English. ] 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *Absolutely, but how does this paper apply? It is not a paper about the origins of the English, nor is it a paper about the genetic history of the continent. There are a plethora of research papers that cover this specifically and in detail I can let you have seven or eight papers about the genetic origins of Europeans and British people if you like. They all show a a paleolithic ice age origin from ice age refugia, followed by a neolithic expansion into Europe from the Near East. This paper is not relevant either to English people (it has nothing to say specifically about them), nor is it about the origins of the English. ] 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | *Absolutely, but how does this paper apply? It is not a paper about the origins of the English, nor is it a paper about the genetic history of the continent. There are a plethora of research papers that cover this specifically and in detail I can let you have seven or eight papers about the genetic origins of Europeans and British people if you like. They all show a a paleolithic ice age origin from ice age refugia, followed by a neolithic expansion into Europe from the Near East. This paper is not relevant either to English people (it has nothing to say specifically about them), nor is it about the origins of the English. ] 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::It applies because I was trying to show that Iberian connection is ancient and modern ethnic English is more closely related with modern ethnic Northern Europeans rather than ethnic Southern Europeans (including Iberians) ] 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The English where originally a Celtic-Iberian race, much like present day ]s, ] was for example a Romano-Celtic-Iberian king and his fame in the middle ages was so wide-spread he was even known and sung about in Spain, the land of his ancestors.--] 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | The English where originally a Celtic-Iberian race, much like present day ]s, ] was for example a Romano-Celtic-Iberian king and his fame in the middle ages was so wide-spread he was even known and sung about in Spain, the land of his ancestors.--] 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:07, 7 December 2006
|
| Apr 2004 - Oct 2006 |
| Oct 2006 - Nov 2006 |
| Dec 2006 |
Civility
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on Talk:Black_people#Examining_Alun.27s_comment. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Lukas19 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It's uncivil because you accused me of not bothering to "think outside of my narrow racialist perspective." and "Distorting biomedical research to try to support my dodgy racialist ideas is what I seem to do best". I will take this further if you are not prepared to comply with wikipedia rules. You are POV pushing and accuse others of distorting scientific research to promote your silly and unscientific PC ideas. Please dont do this. Often the accusations you make is untrue which might be considered as a deliberate attempt to undermine the articles. You are turning wikipedia into a joke. If you cannot make civil criticism or maintain a civilized manner, then I suggest that this is not the place for you. You will always be challenged to be civilized here, if you think that someone merely pointing out that you happen to be wrong, uncivil and a POV pusher is breaking Misplaced Pages rules then you do not understand wikipedia at all. Especially considering the fact that you've been pointing out to WP:SPADE, which is an ESSAY, not an official guideline. Feel free to take this further. Lukas19 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on User_talk:Lukas19. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Lukas19 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Lukas19 has made a habit of accusing every one who does not agree with his extremely narrow point of view of being "uncivil". Lukas19 does not realize that repeated accusations like this are by themselves uncivil. --- Skapur 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thulean/Lucas discussion
1) So, do you have any other example of me "distorting scientific research to promote my racialist POV pushing", besides English People article? And your interpretation there is still questionable....
- Do I need any? Are you asking me to look through your edit history? I will if you like. I have not interpreted these data, I have merely read the paper and commented on the conclusions they have drawn, none of which support your claim. If you think they do then you are free to explain why on the English people talk page. But essentially I am right and I think your edit is totally unsupported by the citation you gave. Even the quote you provided was irrelevant to the article. This is an article about the English ethnic group, the paper you cited made no mention of this group, or its origins. Alun 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, look at my history and tell me when I "distorting scientific research to promote my racialist POV pushing". As for English people, I already explained myself Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
2) "It is a matter of your edit history that you have used spurious "warns" against people in the past." This is another example of your uncivil behavior composed of unjustified, incorrect and stupid accusations.
- Are you calling me stupid again? I do not understand how the link to the edit history of your previous user account (User:Thulean) is relevant here, it has nothing to do with me at all, I was totally uninvolved. So why are you including this evidence? You accused editor User:Skapur of vandalism, when he had made a good faith edit to Nordic theory. His edit may have been misguided, I don't know, but it was certainly not vandalism. You should not use vandalism warnings when you have a content dispute. You accused User:Gottoupload of vandalism over another content dispute at Black people, when you engaged in an edit war with him. So my accusations are not unjustified, they are not incorrect, and if you are calling me stupid what do you think that is? Alun 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- No I didnt call you stupid. I stand by my those two warnings. User:Skapur was already warned by another editor. Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
3) Another example of your uncivil behaviour: "I'm unconcerned about this, you will almost certainly leave wikipedia long before I do. I have seen POV pushers...". This can be also considered as a personal attack now that you've said this several times. See WP:NPA:
"Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom."
- You can consider it what you like, it is not a personal attack. I just said that I am not concerned, you do not intimidate me, how can it be an attack on you, do you think that I should be concerned by this, and that by being unconcerned somehow I am attacking you? Just about any disagreement can be "considered" a personal attack, it doesn't mean that impartial users will think it is an attack. Misplaced Pages is full of people disagreeing, most people do not consider a content disagereement a personal attack or vandalism. Most people do not consider being called a POV pusher a personal attack. It's not a personal attack when what I say is true, I say it with no malice. Calling someone stupid, now that's a personal attack. Alun 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever. If you continue with things like:
"think outside of your narrow racialist perspective."
"Distorting biomedical research to try to support your dodgy racialist ideas is what you seem to do best"
We can ask admins if they are personal attacks or not. I still maintain I havent distorted any research, let alone made it consistent. Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
4) "Unless my memory is faulty you have accused good faith editors of vandalism, when it is clear that they have not engaged in vandalism, and you have accused people of personal attacks before just because they happen to disagree with you." Your memory is faulty. I again note that you accuse others even when you admit your memory might be faulty. The least you can do would be to limit your annoying behaviour of throwing accusations about things which you are sure of... Lukas19 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- See above, where I have provided evidence of you accusing good faith editors of vandalism. No one else would consider these edits vandalism, they are content disputes, nothing more and nothing less. You have also accused both myself and Sugaar of "personal attacks", but I note in the RfC that the majority of people there do not consider Sugaar's posts personal attacks, but merely a healthy scepticism of your motivation. Alun 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I note it wasnt a majority. Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I will not answer you further before you read and understand my comments and relevant material. Ex:
Alun: "Are you calling me stupid again?" me: "This is another example of your uncivil behavior composed of unjustified, incorrect and stupid accusations". Is your name "accusations"?
- Are you trying to provoke me? Or are you trying to be funny? I can't decide. I asked if you were calling me stupid, I never said you were calling me stupid. I wanted clarification, and you have called me stupid it before. Indeed you have accused another editor of making idiotic accusations over at Sugaars RfC and he assumed you were calling him an idiot so there's a pattern of abuse here. Most native speakers of English would interpret someone calling their actions stupid as equivalent to calling them stupid. Maybe you didn't know. Never mind. I note that you have avoided answering. I wonder why that would be? Alun 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you trying to provoke me when you keep mispelling my nick? And I had answered that editor . Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Alun: "This is an article about the English ethnic group, the paper you cited made no mention of this group....."
Article: "Overall, the analysis of sequence variation allowed the authors to distinguish individuals with northern European ancestry (Swedish, English, Irish, German, and Ukrainian)"
- Article, section Materials and methods
so no actual samples from England (or the UK) were used, and US citizens self identified as having grandparents from the United Kingdom, not England. The samples were exclusively from US citizens who had self identifyer grandparents from the United Kingdom. Clearly in the abstract of the article they have mistakenly conflated England with the UK, it is very common for foreigners to do this. Did you actually read the article? Not checking where the samples actually come from is a bit of a blunder, how can they say anything about England when no samples were collected there? Alun 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)European Americans of different regional European origins (681 participants), East Asian Americans (13), African Americans (22), South Asian Americans (48), Amerindians (48), and Swedish (92), Finnish (13), Italian (91), Portuguese (3), southern France (1), and Spanish participants (82) were included in this study......The Italian participants were normal healthy volunteers recruited from throughout Italy: 38 from northern Italy, 23 from central Italy, and 30 from southern Italy. The Swedish and Finnish participants were healthy normal controls collected in these countries. The other participants recruited in southwestern Europe included 86 from Spain, three from Portugal, and one from southern France. Of the Spanish participants, there were 43 from northern Spain, 12 from central Spain, and 19 from southern Spain......For the European Americans, grandparental information was available for the majority of the participants. These included the following self-identifier classifications of grandparents: western European (United Kingdom, northern France, Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland), eastern European (Russia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Czech Republic), central European (Germany, Austria, and Hungary), southern European (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and southern France), Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland), and eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and Albania), Sephardic Jewish American, and White French Canadian. All participants with any reported mixed-continental origins (e.g., African) were excluded.
- If Americans of English ancestry have no link to the English, then why US English population is included in the table in English people?? Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Some people of English ancestry may not be ethnic English but ancestry here is relevant to the discussion about genetics of ethnic English. Lukas19 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely, but how does this paper apply? It is not a paper about the origins of the English, nor is it a paper about the genetic history of the continent. There are a plethora of research papers that cover this specifically and in detail I can let you have seven or eight papers about the genetic origins of Europeans and British people if you like. They all show a a paleolithic ice age origin from ice age refugia, followed by a neolithic expansion into Europe from the Near East. This paper is not relevant either to English people (it has nothing to say specifically about them), nor is it about the origins of the English. Alun 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- It applies because I was trying to show that Iberian connection is ancient and modern ethnic English is more closely related with modern ethnic Northern Europeans rather than ethnic Southern Europeans (including Iberians) Lukas19 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The English where originally a Celtic-Iberian race, much like present day Galicians, King Arthur was for example a Romano-Celtic-Iberian king and his fame in the middle ages was so wide-spread he was even known and sung about in Spain, the land of his ancestors.--Balino-Antimod 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
Hi Alun. I'm not sure if you are still participating in the discussion at Talk:White people/Mediation, but if you are, could you please update your opinion? | AndonicO 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, good luck editing then. And thanks for the liking my practical joke. :-) | AndonicO 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Black People
Thanks for your vote of confidence. People are fighting about just nothing, frankly. It should be obvious to anyone that people do not agree. And they want to fight about whether they agree or not? It is amazing the number of different views, and racists of various stripes. The one good thing is that it does reveal a lot of the divergent beliefs, and even turns up more material and references. But wow...some of these people are sure difficult.--Filll 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I just was slammed by our young friend who claims he can tell at a glance immediately who is black and who is white. He also claims that there is no controversy in the scientific world about the existence of races. When I found quotes to that effect in the very references he quoted, he claimed it was because the authors were incompetent and did not know the literature (which might be true, but a bit besides the point, since it was published in Nature). He also put some drudge in there about the American whites being less racially pure than the Europeans, which is just a complete misunderstanding of the science, as far as I can tell. So he gave me some incivility warnings and then when another editor removed them, he went on a wild diatribe on that editor's talk page. I do think he found a couple of good references, and I would like to see this article at least have some scientific content and references to science.--Filll 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thulean/Lukas19
I see that you are one of the roughly 10 people who has had trouble with this user Lukas19 in about a one month period. I have noticed a disturbing pattern. Take a look at his talk page for more details.--Filll 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)