Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:15, 15 September 2007

Your refusal to enter into discussion

Muntuwandi, are you going to enter into a meaningful discussion on the Negroid talkpage, or are you going to continue to disrupt the article with your constant reversions? Bear in mind, refusing to do so will be interpreted as vandalism if you continue to revert. --Nordic Crusader 05:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Request

Please to not give up because of one editor. I know it's frustrating, but your contributions are needed. Do not let someone's zeal push you away, do not give one person that power. Thanks. - Jeeny  21:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, Jeeny, he doesn't contribute. --Nordic Crusader 22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to "see" you back. Keep your head up, dear Muntuwandi, and continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. But, one critique, use the edit summary please :). - Jeeny  04:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New User: BorgesFour

Just might be a reincarnation of blocked user User:Nordic Crusader. Just in case you might like to be notified. I'll keep an eye on it myself: don't want to add to your headaches. :)--Ramdrake 12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

improvement

Hi Muntuwandi, and thanks. Fred ☻ 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

about the Recent Single Origin Hypothesis page

Muntuwandi, your contributions to what I wrote are very good. I removed the references to "clans" because Brian Sykes' book "The Seven Daughters of Eve" minimizes the fact that the entire root of the mtDNA tree is African - as you know, the entire non-African portion of the tree is just a very minor branch, a part of haplogroup L3e, and we are all the descendants of one of the "seven daughters", "Latisha". In any case, para-haplogroup L is just the root of the tree, with major branches in L0d, L0k, L1a, L1b, and L5 (under which much further down is L3e), and these main branches all predate the Toba Catastrophe of 71,500 years before present. I did want to mention the idea of some archaic admixture though. It seems, from what I know from both reading the literature and from personal communication from the Univ. of Arizona lab, that every single human population has some small degree of archaic admixture: some genes on the X chromosome in sub-Sahara Africa, the HLA-DPA1 0401 allele in Asia with a concentration of 50% in Yunnan, China, MAPT and PDYN in Europe, and a new allele in Papua New Guinea. Of course, it seems that the African effective population size at the time of the Toba Catastrophe was no more that 2000 people, and that as few as 150 people left Africa around 48,500 years before present - this is the date from the mtDNA, and also corresponds to the Y evidence (the tMRCA for the Y is only 58,500 years ago). The remarkable thing is that for the Asian alleles of the HLA-DPA1 region, the tMRCA with the other alleles is as far back as 1.9 million years ago with a very large number of SNPs (14) in common with black-tailed gibbons but not with other humans - a clear sign of admixture with Homo erectus. One could speculate that the chromosome 1 head to head fusion of two chimpanzee / bonobo and other great ape chromosomes 1a and 1b took place right at the time of the advent of Homo habilis, 2.4 million years ago, and therefore erectus and everything later than that was interfertile with anatomically modern humans, because erectus had 23 and not 24 pairs of chromosomes, just as we do. All of this has no implications regarding any one group vs. any other. All of us are equally closely related, merely a single tribe of Bushmen, with an equally small amount of archaic admixture here and there. Also, this didn't seem to affect how people look at all: The highest concentration of the archaic HLA antigen allele on Chromosome 6 is found among the matrilineal Naxi around Lugu Lake in Yunnan, at a rate of 50%, and if you look at photos of these women they look exactly like any other women from China (and American Indians, just as other Asians, carry this allele at a much lower percentage). Also, it turns out (from a major article in the journal Nature in the fall of 2006) that the final separation from chimpanzees and bonobos took place as recently as 4 million years ago (from evidence on the X chromosome). This moves forward the dating of the mtDNA tree by 33% (and from 40% if you use the formerly accepted date of 7 million years). This would imply that chimpanzees and bonobos were interfertile with Australopithecus africanus, and the we humans directly have chimpanzee / bonobo ancestry in addition to "Lucy". A quite remarkable finding. Keep up the good work. You might want to search for some of these papers in PubMed, and read them, and also mention this in this article. This isn't at all the Multiregional Hypothesis, just a lack of a fully complete replacement after modern humans evolved recently in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeogenetics (talk • contribs)

Michael Loren Mauldin

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Michael Loren Mauldin, by 66.82.9.105 (talk · contribs), another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Michael Loren Mauldin fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Michael Loren Mauldin, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger?

Muntuwandi, I seen your message and if you'd like to make a merger, go ahead, I don't think anyone will object.. In the meantime, can you please, please keep an eye on that page (whenever you can, since I know you're busy).. There is a wikistalker now, going around merely trying to revert whatever I do or what ever sources reports on Egypt's Africanity. Namely the user Lanternix.. The evil greek guy is being unreasonable as well.. OMG, he did it again.. Can you please revert this guy when you get the chance?Taharqa 17:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind for now, the page is protected.. It would also be great if you can join the discussion as it seems people are taking liberty to make unsupported charges of "afrocentrism" in the article without specifying. Which is all too convenient for any biased ideologically-driven person to do and I'm tired of entertaining stuff like that..Taharqa 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Race and intelligence. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you wish to request review of this decision, you may place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. Seraphimblade 01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request a review the edits that are said to be in violation of the 3rr rule have been

For example Fourdee, the user who nominated me for violating the 3RR, is quoted in the edit summary as saying

• not cited, doesn't even really make sense, fabricated afro-propaganda removed Revision as of 16:43, 2 August 2007 by
• however Revision as of 16:44, 2 August 2007 and Revision as of 16:46, 2 August 2007 by Muntuwandi, in these revisions I have added the citations which Fourdee has requested.

If they are not easily apparent view this diff of cumulative edits to see that . The {{Fact|date=August 2007}} is replaced with the following references

• http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/Encarta/overview.htm
• http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm

and links to other[REDACTED] article. Does adding citations constitute a revert.

• No editor warned me that I was close to violating the 3RR on this occasion. The warning that I received was from the 15th of July is not related to this article or dispute but to another unrelated dispute. This warning is taken out of context because the reverts on the page were to remove vandalism. The user in question User_Talk:Nordic Crusader has been subsequently banned for adding inflammatory and racist material to the Negroid article. I was removing his material until the Admins had him blocked. I therefore believe my nomination for 3RR violation is in bad faith.

Decline reason:

Your request is too confused. Please be more succinct. — Sandstein 10:42, 3 August 2007 (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.

I'm concerned that Muntuwandi still does not understand WP:3RR or the very limited possible exceptions to it. We are not to undo the actions of other editors on any one article, in whole or in part, more than 3 times in 24 hours, nor are we to engage in a habit of reverting other editors on an article day after day, even if it is not more than 3 times per day. Restoring material and adding citations is still restoring it. Only blatant vandalism or WP:BLP violations might be an exception to the 3RR. The warning is evidence that at least in principle you are aware of the 3RR. Please avoid engaging in edit wars with other users and especially limit the number of times you will revert other editors in any day. To keep restoring (or deleting) the same material over and over again is just not how we would like to edit articles. It's better to work it out on the talk page. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee

fourdee the user who on this occasion() nominated Muntuwandi for violating the 3RR rule, has been blocked indefinitely for racist and antisemitic edits, This comment , . He was personally blocked by Jimbo Wales. Though this 3RR incident occurred some time ago, and same may say it is water under the bridge, I think it is still necessary to reflect on it.

Whenever there is a dispute between two parties admins will check the block log of both parties. If an editor has a number of blocks it is likely that the admins will perceive him or her to be trouble maker and be biased against him/her. However the blocks logs sometimes do not provide adequate context. On this particular occasion Muntuwandi maintains that Fourdee filed a 3rr report in bad faith. A 3rr report normally requires that a warning be sent to other party involved. So Fourdee dug up an ancient warning from an unrelated article and presented it in the report. Furthermore while his racist edits are recent news to many admins, it was of no surprise to those of us who have encountered this user frequently. Maybe if the admin involved had known, he would have acted differently, I don't really know. But it is entirely possible.

Since this block Muntuwandi has encountered hostility from some admins. Muntuwandi had not encountered such hostility from admins prior to this block. I believe this block contributed to another subsequent block which was not for the 3RR but for gaming the system. Muntuwandi had reported a user for violating the 3RR but instead Muntuwandi was blocked for "gaming" and the user who violated the 3RR was not blocked. Muntuwandi believes that this was bias stemming from the earlier block.

However Muntuwandi feels partially vindicated, since Fourdee was blocked by Jimbo himself. Muntuwandi hopes that this has provided some context surrounding this block and admins and other editors may take this into consideration. Muntuwandi 19:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for continuisly helping me remove the original research from human height. Cheers. 124.168.39.104 12:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

About the article Race and Intelligence

If you're still actively editing, can you e-mail me here? Thanks!--Ramdrake 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

White People Article

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as White People. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.36.79 (talk • contribs)

Are you Hayden/Nordic Crusader? Weird that you've both been blocked and now editing the same article again under New Zealand IPs, and accusing others of ownership. Also reverting other's edits. - Jeeny 01:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Most probably Hayden/Nordic Crusader. If he continues we will have to request semi-protection. Muntuwandi 01:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, about your editing on White people, you obviously have some passion and knowledge about that topic, so I want to ensure your passion is well-directed towards appropriate editing. First, two pillars of Misplaced Pages are Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Misplaced Pages:No original research (OR). NPOV guides us to make sure all articles are neutrally written and worded, and without bias. This is not to say that we route out bias present in the discourse related to a topic or the scientific research about it. After all, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Instead, we should represent the scientific, political, anthropological, and social facts and discussions about "white people" as faithfully as possible. There is a significant body of scholarship indicating race is bunk and meaningless as a scientific concept or a firm category. At the same time, race has significant social and political consequences in many countries because people do categorize themselves and others by skin color and more complex markers of race. As to one issue, characterizing Barack Obama as white at the head of the article is pushing it , and doing so without any references is original research. I think we both know the reality is that Obama is multiracial, and not white as the term is widely understood.

A related issue is proper use of edit summaries. Edit summaries such as this and this are not acceptable because they are uncivil and the referenced behavior does not clearly constitute trolling. Please use neutral edit summaries. For those edits, an appropriate summary is "comment" or "comment in response to KarenAER", etc.--Chaser - T 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are automated edit summaries from the section head which was created by KarenAER , I recognize that I have a weakness for using edit summaries, many editors have already advised me. I'll try to remember. The addition of Barack Obama was by User:Godongwana and I had reverted an edit to this version, I have no opinion on the inclusion of barack obama's picture at this point. And I am not a sock of User:Godongwana, you can perform a checkuser to confirm, we were editing at the same time and I do not know his/her location. If we agree on a few edits it is coincidental. Muntuwandi 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, accusing someone of trolling in an edit summary is confrontational; better to avoid them altogether if that's what the automatic tools do. I'm not a checkuser, so I can't do that. It should be declined or checked within a few days. Do you know Godongwana in real life? Whoever he/she is, the editing suggests he's been around before.--Chaser - T 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The accuser was KarenAER. I do not know who Godongwana is. Muntuwandi 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my earlier misconception. I struck that paragraph above as I now understand what you were saying. I've also changed the section header on the article talk page.--Chaser - T 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

FYI, KarenAER 22:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Image for Hamitic Section

Would you make a collage for the citation I found for the Hamitic section on this edit?----Tea 08:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

jeez, don't encourage him with those things --Cape Colony Kaffir 11:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pattern of original research, POV pushing and original research

Hello, your recent edits to have been identified as original research and reverted. Please do not add your personal opinion(s) or unverified claims to Misplaced Pages.

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.
-- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously

About this set of additions . How can you even begin to add a big section like that without any sourcing? Seriously, after all of the discussion about this type of editing and prior warnings... why aren't you taking feedback? The Behnam 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deliberately Introducing Incorrect Information

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to White People, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --देसीफ्राल 05:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I like your username. Just thought I let you know. Good day, Brusegadi 10:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP

Hi. I support the re-inclusion here . Was this removed by oone of the regulars or just a random passerby? On its face it looks well referenced and reasonable. Want to chat before making it an issue at the talk page. --Kevin Murray 16:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think that I successfully reincluded the text deleted this morning in anotther place. I'm bummed about Jeeny and emailed her encouraging her to return. I'm shocked about Ramdrake -- I've been sparring with him for a year or more. Hang in there! I don't always agree with what you do or say, but you bring sme great energy and ideas. Good conversations will bring more unity than strife. Have a great weekend. --Kevin Murray 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

ISBNs and pages alone are not sufficient, and there is nowhere in the citation policy that says that it is. See WP:CITE#HOW for what is required. MSJapan 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Be mindful of 3RR

I notice there seems to be a revert war at Negroid -- please be careful to avoid breaking WP:3RR or, better yet, make use of the dispute resolution process, instead of edit warring. Sending both of you an identical message. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He's constantly edit warring on these same topics and has been blocked already. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Please do not attack people, places, organizations, or communities, as you did in your recent edits. This is considered to be an act of vandalism, and further inappropriate editing will result in you being blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Misplaced Pages is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you.

Your edits and pattern of introducing uncited controversial material continue to be a problem. You have been warned repeatedly by many different people for your edits on a number of race-related articles. Specifically this edit is a personal attack and is part of your pattern of behavior which at this point I think you know is not acceptable. Thanks. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:One drop rule.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:One drop rule.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. देसीफ्राल 05:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC) देसीफ्राल 05:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Light skin colors.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Light skin colors.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. देसीफ्राल 05:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC) देसीफ्राल 05:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

I'd appreciate you taking a deeper look at the hard work that has gone into balancing the gallery. I've been fair with you so please stop the rhetoric about unfair images. I think that you are continuing an old battle with the wrong person. I'm happy to work with you on this, but fanning the flames only disrupts the hard work to good purpose. --Kevin Murray 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have made an effort to balance the gallery. Naturally photogenic images are preferred but my concern is that a gallery may turn into an advertisement for beauty. In which case it would lose value in discussing the concept of race. Muntuwandi 06:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Help me with this, please. A problem which I've faced is finding images either on WP or which are otherwise verifiably from an ethnic group. The restictive nature of the WP photo policy makes it tough. I've got people complaining that we've got too many politicians, and cranks trying to post their favorite stars etc. You and D Bachman both make sense and I want to work together, but please don't get people riled up, just help me to find pictures that work, and let me post them so we don't get the anti MW backlash. Then help me fight the vandals and cranks. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray 06:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Carey collage at WP

MW, I could supprt this modified display. The inclusion of Jolie is unexplained and her facial features have been altered by surgery, so the implied point is invalid. As a minor nit on the logic, Carey self-identifies as Black, but I can pass on that nuance.

Photos at WP

Should the mixed race embrace be larger than the other photos or be a thumbnail? --Kevin Murray 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

images for deletion

If your white people/one drop images do get deleted, perhaps you can build a table with existing images? Just a thought --Knulclunk 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hours for gaming the 3RR on Religion. Please reach discussion on the talk page rather then revert warring. Spartaz 12:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please review my edits because i did not make more than 3 reversions within 24 hrs. This is my edit history of the Religion

• added new material on the origin of religion on 15:06, 17 August 2007
• 1st revert 15:59, 17 August 2007
• 2nd revert 22:55, 17 August 2007
• 3rd revert 16:09, 18 August 2007

I made only 3 reverts from the period 15:59, 17 August 2007 to 16:09, 18 August 2007 which by my count is 24 hrs and 10 minutes. More than 24 hrs. If the first addition of information is included then that is 4 edits within a period 25 hrs and 3 minutes. All these within the regulation of the 3RR by my understanding.

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time

I made one edit 00:19, 18 August 2007 but this is a minor edit, formating links.

Decline reason:

The purpose of WP:3RR is to prevent edit warring. As the policy makes clear, 3RR is not an entitlement; waiting until it's 25 hours instead of 24 does not mean you are refraining from edit warring -- rather the opposite; it means you are trying to very carefully edit war. Sit out the block, and don't edit war when you get back. — jpgordon 15:26, 19 August 2007 (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.

• Reviewing admin please note the following recent edits to Religion by Muntuwandi:
• 17:09, 18 August 2007
• 01:19, 18 August 2007 Intermediate revision not counting
• 23:55, 17 August 2007
• 16:59, 17 August 2007
• 16:06, 17 August 2007

I make that 4 reverts in 25 hours - definitely gaming 3RR bearing in mind he was reporting another editor at AN3 at the same time. Spartaz 13:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I had also extended an offer to MSJapan for discussing changes to the article01:06, 18 August 2007 .

MsJapan, you have reverted more than 3 times. I suggest you revert back and we can continue the discussion on the origin of religion. I am open to modification, but this is a valid subtopic. Religion did not just drop from the sky. It has its origins and some scientists have researched this area, on which I would like to make additions.

He did not take the offer, so I reported him for 3rr violation. After 24hrs elapsed I reverted. Yes I was looking at the clock because I did not want to get blocked. had someone warned me about gaming, maybe I wouldn't have, but gaming is subjective a warning would help. Ive never been blocked or warned about gaming. My first time to edit this article was 2 days ago. I am a controversial editor but I try my best to act in good faith. Muntuwandi 13:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Its assumed that anyone reporting another user at AN3 has actually read the policy and understands that they may also be liable for sanctions and that gaming the 3RR is also grounds for a block. This isn't your first block for revert warring and you have as much admitted that you use the AN3 report to gain advantage in a content dispute. I'm going to leave it to the reviewing admin to consider this but you must understand that if you carry on like this you will eventually lose your editing privileges permanently. Spartaz 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too early in the article for a clear pattern of gaming. My first time to edit the article was two days ago and I only made 4 edits. If you see the other articles I am editing such as white people or race and intelligence maybe a case for gaming could be made because I edit them a lot. I did a lot of research to find the information that I placed in the article, so to be treated as a vandal is disheartening. You can see from my contributions, I use the talk page quite a bit to try to build consensus edits. At least 25% of the time. Muntuwandi 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think you are showing favoritism to the other Editor. You offered to unblock him if he does not edit the religion article. How come no such offer was made to me, when he is the one who broke the 3RR rule and I did not break the 3RR rule.

This was your third 3RR violation so a long block is indicated but it has been some months since you were last blocked and I can see that you have attempted to reach an agreement on the article talk page. I have therefore settled on 48 hours. I am willing to unblock you if you undertake not to edit Religion until after your block was due to expire. If you agree to this please use the {{unblock}} template or leave a note under this.diff

Muntuwandi 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked for 3RR very recently and at least MSJapan was editing in accordance with the consensus on the talk page. I do not consider your violations equal. Spartaz 13:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There were only two editors Me and MSJapan, at the time, so it is wrong to say that MSjapan was editing with consensus. Furthermore other editors supported my edits see comments. Muntuwandi 14:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: No editors actually editing at Religion supported your edits. Your link goes to hypothetical support of your side of the story by commentators at the incident noticeboard. Those reading this need to follow the link for themselves to see what I'm talking about. Do not be fooled by the editors misdirection. The edits at Religion were highly contentious and added a synthesis of theoretical information that simply doesn't belong in the entry in question.PelleSmith 12:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore MSJapan had issues with the way the information was cited, I used Amazon reader which allows readers to get excerpts from a book onlinebefore the Dawn. I used it because I thought it is much quicker to get quotes from a book than having to go to the library or book store to read the excerpts. He argued that I should use the standard citation method for books on wikipedia. So one of the reverts22:55, 17 August 2007is simply using the standard book citation that was requested by MSJapan. which was

"Wade, Nicholas - Before The Dawn, Discovering the lost history of our ancestors. Penguin Books, London, 2006. p. 8" Muntuwandi 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This user is in several simultaneous conflicts with a number of other editors and administrators for exhibiting the same behavior of re-inserting badly sourced POV material that nobody else wants in the articles. He has been blocked already for it, been warned that any edit warring can lead to block, etc. and is now trying to get other users blocked whom he has essentially baited into it by his persistent near-vandalism. If it were one article this might be called a misunderstanding or a content dispute. It's all across[REDACTED] - this is disruption not just a 3RR violation. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And I will certify that the above by User:Fourdee is a persistent misrepresentation of the facts and should be ignored.--Ramdrake 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

absurd block

MSJapan the user who consciously and knowingly broke the 3RR rule is given a pat on the back. And the user who did not break the rule is treated as a vandal. When he broke the 3rr rule I could have followed my instincts and edit warred but I exercised restraint. I did not rush to report him, because i wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and made him an offer to revert so that we could continue the discussion and reach a compromise. He did not accept this offer so I reported him. When my time limit expired there was still no action from the admins on MSJapan. 14 hours after reporting him I reverted. Had he/she taken the opportunity I would have even requested he/she not be blocked. I don't take pleasure in having editors who I have just encountered blocked. Muntuwandi 15:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case

Hello, you have been listed as a potential participant in an informal mediation regarding a dispute over White people. The case page is listed at Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19_White_people. I am looking over the case, and am willing to offer my assistance in this. If you are willing to participate in the mediation and willing to accept my offer to mediate, please let me know. Thank you, Neranei (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if the other parties are willing. Muntuwandi 03:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just been reading what is on the Talk:White people. Though User:Jeeny and I have been blocked, the mean spiritedness of some of the editors continues. In fact those are some of the nastiest things I have read from established editors(ie non-IP vandals). Isn't it ironic Muntuwandi 03:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the other parties have accepted, none have refused, so we are getting somewhere. Jeeny is unblocked, I think, but you won't be unblocked for awhile. That may delay things. By the way, I am a new mediator, so please be patient with me. Thank you. Neranei (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again

I see that you are very much involved in editing very 'hard to edit' articles. Concerning race and intelligence; A book by Jared Diamond titled Guns Germs, and Steel attempts to explain differences in living standards across the world using what some may call "environmental determinism". It is a good read. I recommend the version that has the 2003 foreword. It may also serve you well in providing sources since I am willing to bet that he has a good stack of references. I will try to become involved in that article to make it less POV, but as of now I have my hands full in the real world. Good luck and happy editing, Brusegadi 06:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Mariah.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mariah.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 17Drew 03:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ancient egypt

The Egypt and race page is back up, and I've tried to begin the process of merging it now.. See what you think and of course try and watch it. http://en.wikipedia.org/Population_history_of_ancient_EgyptTaharqa 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Note on edit summaries

Please use edit summaries. -- FayssalF - 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Phral AN/I thing

Hello, would you prefer to email me about the AN/I issue, or to discuss it on our respective talk pages? Neranei (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind using the talk page. Muntuwandi 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you do realize that the discussion will not be private then. Neranei (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I make little secret of my opinions, necessary for part of my sanity. If there is anything private, I will email you Muntuwandi 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's continue our discussion. What were you saying? Neranei (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

One of my concerns with mediation is that the other editors, Fourdee and Phral, do not make any substantive contributions to the articles. I do not recall any one of them adding a information from a peer reviewed publication to the article. They mostly use the talk page as vehicle to express their personal opinions. Fourdee has even gone as far as admitting that he is racist. He is entitled to his own views but that doesn't help the article if he does not provide any information. While some of my edits are controversial, they are still sourced from what i believe to be reliable sources such as peer reviewed journals etc. Muntuwandi 02:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have valid concerns, as do they, and if you have not already made a statement at the talk page, please do so, so that your opinion can be expressed. Neranei (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a statement on the talk page as well. Muntuwandi 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you for your statement. Neranei (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that Phral has been blocked. Neranei (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

Hi Muntuwandi. I must say that I don't always agree with your edits, especially to the Race and genetics article, but I very much appreciate your involvement in Misplaced Pages, I think you are a very great asset. I am sorry there is an editor who is hounding you. As for Phrallus Secundus, I kept spelling it this way and kept getting red links and I couldn't understand why. Made me smile when I realised. Alun 11:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the same mistake as wellMuntuwandi 04:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:James brown and wife.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:James brown and wife.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ilse@ 11:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Race and ancient Egypt (controversies)

Muntuwandi, we need your presence to the article Race and ancient Egypt (controversies). Zerida and Egyegy have proposals for its improvement. I hope they will agree to debate them. http://en.wikipedia.org/Race_and_ancient_Egypt_%28controversies%29 . Meanwhile somebody has created a second article from the content of the first one http://en.wikipedia.org/Race_and_ancient_Egyptians--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 12:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

trolls

Hey, I hope that my comment about ignoring trolls did not come across to you as dismissive of the pain or anger they can cause. I am well aware of it - if you care to look here (if the reference is oblique to you, go to The Eternal Jew). My comment on this particular troll and trolls in general was intended solely to be constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Note

Guess who Godongwana really was? Phral/Hayden/Nordic Crusader. Checkuser has connected the accounts, so don't let anyone bother you about him again; he was just flying a false flag and trying to make you look bad by taking your side. Picaroon (t) 07:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow thats interesting. Muntuwandi 12:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

your approach to editing Misplaced Pages

Muntuwandi, your behaviour is not acceptable. You have made it a habit to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. this move and your edits to European people are just recent examples. Please reconsider. As it is, you are simply wasting your own time and that of others. --dab (𒁳) 07:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

not exactly, when I added European people, who were of color, they were rejected as not european. What that means is that this article is only referring to indigenous Europeans. So I made the change. If the article is to remain as European people, then it should include citizens of european countries regardless of their appearance. To not do so is to go against conventions. When I watch the UEFA European Football Championship, this tournament is only open to European people. I see people of a variety of shades. The UEFA European Football Championship does not say that you have to white to participate in it. Muntuwandi 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but citizenship requirements vary - if you can get a passport from X country, you can play for them. As an example, there are a number of players "of German extraction" on the German team with Latino last names who are children or grandchildren of German citizens (largely from Argentina), but had not set foot in Germany until signing a contract to play football. Germany also has some very weird regulations regarding who is a "foreigner" and who isn't. Again, you're removing things from context so they fit what you wish to say. MSJapan 03:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Negroid

Just a note — perhaps you should engage in some discussion on this article's talk page with the other editors before you start edit warring over this picture again? Just a thought. --Haemo 05:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Race and genetics

Hi, just wanted to point out that there is no point in having this edit war with MoritzB on this issee. You are not actually contradicting each other. All populations outside of Africa are more closely related to each other than they are to to Africans under ROA, the African populations they are most closely related to are East African populations. On the other hand it is perfectly acceptable to say that of the out of Africa groups, Europeans may well be the closest to Africans. These are no incompatible concepts. Alun 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

wikibreak

I am taking a few days off. But don't get to comfortable I'll be back with my "agendas". Feel free to leave a message, if there is anything requiring my attention. Muntuwandi 13:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:James brown and wife.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:James brown and wife.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ilse@ 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:James brown and wife.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:James brown and wife.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ilse@ 10:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please notice that there already is a similar low resolution image here Image:James brown and wife.png. If you have any questions regarding non-free image, please feel free to ask. – Ilse@ 10:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Negroid

Regarding above-mentioned article: Reply will be posted on my talkpage. As the archive-bot archives sections if there is no traffic in three days, you may wish to read the reply before then. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Kylu, don't be too sensitive, nothing personal is meant but as an admin you should be aware that many of the disputes are quite heated. Muntuwandi 00:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You protected this article before and the person who protected this time did it based on your advice(see above). This admin has since disappeared. (you to Haemo, see Talk:Negroid). I haven't protected the page on Haemo's advice, I protected it because people are warring over the content of the article. I also second his initial message of why the page was protected and what it means. I haven't vanished, either: You're confusing administrators with a dispute resolution process. We're not. Yes, some admins are members of dispute resolution processes, as are more non-admins. Quite frankly, I think you have a fundamentally flawed view of the purpose of admins on Misplaced Pages. In that, I agree with Haemo. I can suggest some pages on Misplaced Pages that do a very good job of explaining the various community roles, if you'd like. G'day. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

However it does seem that your protection has caused more problems than it is solving and more mudslinging, the discussions have been deteriorating, and the server volumes that you so feared are right up there with edit after edit on the talk page. As far as I know, admins are the next step above regular users in at least trying to keep[REDACTED] in order. only after 3 reverts was the article protected. I think this was too short a time and no chance was given to see whether things could settle down. I did feel a disconnect because usually when an admin protects a page they do at least monitor the discussion, chiming in every now and then, this really helps because important in any dispute is that both parties believe that there is at least someone neutral. This helps to cool things down. At present there is nobody neutral, just two polarised camps. Whatever I say, no matter how credible none of the other side will believe. Muntuwandi 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, the admin-of-record for the protection is now MZMcBride (see page history). I've read the dispute, and at least one person disagrees with the counting of consensus there. I'm no longer "required" to be involved at all, even as far as telling you (again) how to get your issue resolved. I'd really, really, as one-editor-to-another, however, suggest you go visit WP:RFC and get some outside opinions on the matter. I was trying to stay uninvolved, that way there'd be no illusion of bias, but I think those involved were trying to establish such a bias by any means available. Good luck on your article. I'm no longer watching the article or any talkpages of its editors. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

New Negroid

I didn't want this to get mixed in with the previous, long section, even though we are all talking (ranting, shouting) about the same article. It is a mess, isn't it? I would like to think about it after I have had some food and sleep. It would appear that, to do it right, all the controversies should be dealt with, but I don't know that either of us (I am just shy of 60) has enough years left in which to get this through to a consensus. I like the fact that you are not limiting your examples or explanations to me to the U.S. The article could be much stronger for a world view. I wish I had the professional background to rout out the sources. Thanks for answering my questions. If I come up with something useful, I will be back in touch. Those 1914 photos were of no use without a lot more explanation than they deserved. Bielle 02:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky people

This page, of course needs to be deleted ASAP since it violates WP:CFORK.. Someone actually set up a separate article so that they may pov-push what they felt. This is getting ridiculous. And do you have any idea how user Dbachmann made edits to the ancient egypt and race page, seeing as how it's protected?Taharqa 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, is there any way to redirect it right now, or will it not work since one of the pages are protected? I see no reason why they wouldn't delete it, at least they should redirect it like you said.Taharqa 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Changing Funkynusayri's comments to refer to you by your actual username is appropriate, but censoring him like this is not. Please don't do that again. Picaroon (t) 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See, however, the note in italics which states that the practice of replacing offensive words with alternatives is controversial, even if it is allowed. If he uses the word gratuitously or so as to offend you, tell me, but his current comments on Talk:Negroid do not appear to fit that description. Picaroon (t) 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mutuwandu. For the article "Genetic History of Europe" an image of the distribution of E-M81 would probably be more appropriate. Could you please upload it on the article?

Thanks! --Burgas00 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mayr and Race

MoritzB is correct that Mayr argues for the existence of "races." I suspect MoritzB's mistake is to think that "race" always means the same thing, so if Coon, Mayr, and Agassiz 9and MoritzB) use the word race they are all agreeing. They way I read Mayr, his is using the word "race" to refer to a very specific kind of population, and this usage has nothing in common with pre-population genetics/pre-Mendelian notions of race. I tried to introduce Mayr into the article in a way that makes this clear. Regardless of my personal opinions, I think the key battle here is to make it clear that when populaton geneticists (whterh Dobzhansky or Mayr) use the word race, they just do not mean what most people mean by the word. I think that this needs to be accomplished not specifically where we mention Mayr or Dobzhansky but th section as a whole - population genetics destroyes prior notions of race, and those population geneticists who continue to use the word "race" are actually using a different concept of race than what existed previously - or than what circulates popularly. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

race

Please consider my comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

Be on the look out for the persistent pov-pushers on wiki. It truly seems that this place is a haven for racist pov-pushing trolls, but what else do you expect from a public encyclopedia? This is in specific reference to Dbachmann, who has been crazing over the Egyptian thing for a while, imposing his pov. Even showing up at the "black people" article and distorting cited information, only to be reverted (by you) and backed up by another user named Paul Barlow or something (who I reverted). They don't even have reasons to revert, they merely do it because they have nothing to counter with, lol. I have no idea why there isn't a violation covering the blanking of cited material with out an alternative or critique of the said sources. It is disgusting. I know that you're always on your toes, but just giving you a heads up anyways.Taharqa 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was quiet indeed...

PC was in the repair shop. All better now. Thanks for asking.--Ramdrake 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Genetic heterogeneity, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.medicalglossary.org/variation_genetics_genetic_heterogeneity_definitions.html. As a copyright violation, Genetic heterogeneity appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Genetic heterogeneity has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Genetic heterogeneity and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Genetic heterogeneity with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Genetic heterogeneity.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Whpq 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR

There is a huge debate going on concerning the future of the NOR policy Misplaced Pages talk:No original research. I think you understand what is at stake, and hope you will participate. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)