User talk:Lukas19/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 warning 2 Black people 3 Ethiopians 4 Hello Lukas19 5 The History and Geography of Human Genes 6 Assume good faith 7 Mediation 8 Civility warnings 9 Uncivil 10 Misrepresenting your views 11 Reporting me? 12 Warning - harassment, NPA

[edit] warning

On what basis did you issue me a warning? --- Skapur 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any idea of the difference between a bold edit and vandalism --- Skapur 05:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black people

Hi, we seem to be arguing over really trivial things. All the article is saying is that on the genetic level, Ethiopians are in between blacks and cuacasians, and that caucasians are in between East Asians and Africans. This is all well documented, may simply reflect nothing more than the ancient order in which 1 race mutated into another (i.e. Africans mutated into Ethiopians who then mutated into caucasians who then mutated into East Asians). I'm not sure why you find this so disturbing. Did you think all the race just suddenly appeared all it once? If not, some must be more related to each other than others. What in particular is bothering you? Editingoprah 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopians

I'm glad we achieved compromise on the Blasian issue, however the edits you are making on Ethiopians are simply incorrect. Ethiopians simply can not be lumped in with other sub-Saharan Africans because Ethiopians mutated off of sub-Saharans in the form of elongated Africans (Africans with narrow features). These elongated Africans spread out into the middle East where they mutated into full blown caucasians. Those full blown Caucasians later mixed with Ethiopians, pushing the Ethiopian gene pool even closer to the caucasian race.

Look at the following genetic chart:

Note that the Amhara (a major Ethiopian ethnicity) is not part of the sub-Saharan cluster, but instead has been attached to the North/East (caucasoid) branch of the African tree. Editingoprah 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The study you cited did not even include Ethiopians, and you don't even know how they defined sub-Saharan. Why are you trying to intentionally mislead readers when you know that what you are saying is incorrect. Also, check this out:

R. Scacchi et al.

Human Biology 75.2 (2003) 293-300

recent phylogenetic analysis based on classical protein polymorphism (Tartaglia et al. 1996) and Y-chromosome sequence variation (Underhill et al. 2000) showed that Ethiopians appear to be distinct from Africans and more closely associated with populations of the Mediterranean basin. Editingoprah 19:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The study you cite is talking about where peoples ancestors lived, but genetic studies show that a substantial fraction of Ethiopian ancestors are from the middle east. Calling them a sub-Saharan group because they live in sub-Sahara today makes no sense because much of their ancestry is not indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. Also check out this genetic chart which proves yet again that Ethiopians do not cluster with sub-Saharan Africans:

Image:Chart3.gif Editingoprah 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chart3.gif

[edit] Hello Lukas19

Hello again Thulean/Lukas19. I was on a wikibreak for the last 4 days, but I noticed no one had yet posted on the mediation page. You tell me, what has happened that I should know. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to break the impression of many people that the original humans were black when they were nothing of the sort, Ethiopes of course are not true blacks and the deniers know this secretly but won't admit to it. Cheers.--LaBotadeFranco 15:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say I admire your work, if you ever need "reinforcements", you can know who to call.Regards--LaBotadeFranco 03:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The History and Geography of Human Genes

As far as I can tell this was the source of the citation to The History and Geography of Human Genes, p. 82 that is under discussion at Talk:Black people#Gallery. Please provide a direct quote from that source to support "According to DNA of the world's populations cluster by Cavalli-Sforza, Blasians may be genetically distant to Blacks as much as Whites are." It would also be useful if there were a citation in The History and Geography of Human Genes to a peer-reviewed publication that also supports this claim. --JWSchmidt 04:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

It is not uncivil just because I disagree with you. Please stop abusing wikipedia "warn" notices. I will take this further if you are not prepared to comply with wikipedia rules. You are POV pushing and distorting scientific research to promote naive and spurious "racialist" ideas. Please do not do this. Often the sources you cite do not support the edits you have made, it is only a specific interpretation that supports your edits, specifically your interpretation, this is either original research or a deliberate attempt to undermine the article. You are turning wikiedia into a joke . I am currently assuming good faith because you have not displayed the overt racism of some of the people who "admire" your work, such as User:Albinomite who I notice has had an indefinite block. Please see WP:SPADE. I hope you do "report" me, it will show categorically that you are just trying to use wikipedia rules about civility to introduce POV into articles. If you cannot take criticism then I suggest that this is not the place for you. You will always be challenged here, if you think that someone merely pointing out that you happen to be wrong and a POV pusher is a "personal attack" then you do not understand wikipedia at all. Alun 06:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lukas19 attacked me also without any reason to push his POV ideas --- Skapur 12:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't let Wobble intimidate you, he himself said he's never reported anyone and never will, doesn't have the cojones if you know what I mean.--Cupidon 07:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you are distorting scientific research to promote your racialist POV pushing. I refer you to your edit of English people, which was clearly an attempt to undermine the article, was clearly an attempt to push a distorted interpretation of science, and was not supported by the research. Citing sources is important, claiming sources support a POV that they don't, or claiming that a source states something that it doesn't is a brach of all three rules WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. These are policies, I merely stated that in doing this you are pushing a POV and that you were wrong. I do not think you can dispute this, it is in the edit history. If you are claiming that my post was a personal attack then I can only assume that you are attempting to intimidate me by claiming that if I disagree with you I must be "punished" or something. Well I'm not intimidated by this. It is a matter of your edit history that you have used spurious "warns" against people in the past. 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. I'm unconcerned about this, you will almost certainly leave wikipedia long before I do. I have seen POV pushers come and go, they always go in the end because it is clearly difficult to push a single POV when it is so obviously against wikipedia policies. All the best. Alun 14:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lukas, I agree with Cupidon. Don't let this guy intimidate you. He seem to believe that he cannot do anything wrong and seems to feel that he can attack other editors and simply deny that he was being uncivil and somehow that makes it so. The best way to handle this guy is to point out that he was in violation of policy, let him retort, then end the convo. Otherwise, you'll just get long-winded repetitions of the same exact argument reworded on your talk page. Do keep in mind, however, that there is a difference between bold edits and vandalism. In your case though, he did clearly make a personal attack. --Strothra 16:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made no attacks. If you think I have then feel free to take it further. I will stand by my comments and edits, and I will defend myself. I will take any blocks or whatever any admin decides I deserve. But the way I see it I am simply calling a calling a spade a spade. I note that Strothra has used spurious "warns" against me and other users, and accused me of a personal attack spuriously as well.User_talk:Strothra/Archive_4#Warnings. Alun 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thulean/Lucas I have responded to you on my talk page. I wanted to take your points one by one, and instead of pasting them here I have simply replied there. Hope this is OK. Alun 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you watch my talk page for a while I will respond there, just to keep everything together. Is this OK? Alun 19:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hello again Lukas. I've been checking the mediation, but it seems to me that many problems have been solved, and probably new ones are now in their place. Could you tell me of the new issues in place? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll ask the others to update too, if they feel it necessary. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility warnings

After reviewing the pages and comments referenced in your civility warnings to User:Filll, I have removed the warnings from his talkpage. While the word "rascist" is troubling to many people, the comment itself was not incivil; nor is there any reasonable doubt that there are displays of rascism in the article and associated talkpage. I wanted to let you know what I've done and why, to avoid any possible misunderstandings. Thanks! Doc Tropics 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I support this move. I make this post in repsonse to comments located at User_talk:Doc_Tropics#Civility_warnings. Lukas19, if you feel an administrator's attention is needed for something, please post on WP:AN/I or on an adiministrator's talk page. Take personal attack problems to WP:PAIN. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the removal seems to have been reverted by Lukas19 --- Skapur 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncivil

So I am racist? How? We have had both blacks and whites on the page talking about racial purity of their groups. I think that is heading into racist territory myself and I will point it out when I see it. When you make comments about how impure racially Americans are compared to Europeans, you are starting to step into that territory as well. Just try it out with others and see if they do not agree with me.

I said people were difficult? Where? I was not able to find the quote, and I was called stupid. I was called ignorant and stupid over and over. You want me to continue?

I might very well be stupid and ignorant. That is not polite of you to call me that, or imply that I am stupid and ignorant. If I am mentally disabled, you are acting in a very discriminatory manner towards someone that is disabled. I have been called stupid and ignorant by far better than you, and it does not bother me. If it makes you feel better, call me stupid and ignorant all you want. Call everyone stupid and ignorant. I hope it helps you. But somehow I doubt that you have too many masters degrees or PhDs yet, so if you want to go down this road, I think you might have egg on your face. But be my guest. Go ahead. I dare you.

Look, you have found some good material. But you are acting like a bully, frankly. How do you think you will do if you want to fight with the other bullies? The falangists and the black supremacists and the black pride people? I am not your enemy. I am only trying to include all viewpoints, contrary to some like yourself who seem to be trying to stomp out all resistance so they can write the article the way they want.

If it makes you feel better, I will just agree with whatever you want. Then you can fight the real bullies who are acting just like you, but who hold opposite views. Good luck.--Filll 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A little examination seems to show you do not seem to be able to get along with others very well. Let's take a look at some people you seemed to have crossed swords with, in a very short period of time (looks like a bit more than a month):

• Psychohistorian
• Filll
• Kobrakid
• P0M
• Dark Tichondrias
• Alun
• Sugaar
• Veritas et Severitas
• Editingoprah
• Skapur

Your supporters seem to be falangists and white supremacists, who have put some very racially objectionable material on their pages and on talk pages etc. Also, you seem to get into pretty nasty fights constantly. You claim everyone is against you and out to get you. You think anyone who disagees with you is stupid or ignorant or being uncivil etc. You make a wide variety of outrageous claims it seems, and then when they are challenged you respond with venom. I suspect these are not good symptoms. I see a pattern here. Do you ? You might be surprised if you knew some of the racial makeups of the people you are disagreeing with so vehemently, and the educational backgrounds and identities of the people you are so sure are stupid and ignorant and inferior in various ways. Why don't you just take a deep breath before you get yourself in more trouble here? Just some friendly advice.--Filll 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• 1)Direct quote of me: "Maybe it is because you are American and Americans consider some people who wouldnt be considered white in Europe as white. Also many whites in USA are actually mixed. 1/3rd of white Americans have less than 90% European ancestry."

Source: "Shriver et al. (2003) found that on average African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. Likewise, many white Americans have mixed European and African ancestry, where ~30% of whites have less than 90% European ancestry." [1]

So I stated the result of research of Shriver. This is an encyclopaedia. I havent got time for your political sensibilities.

MY POLITICAL SENSIBILITIES? Because what I have claimed seemed to be politically correct? I do not care if there is a big genetic separation between blacks and whites or not. If the data show it and the methods used to analyze the data are reasonable and there is concensus, then I do not care. I have no political axe to grind. None. You are the one who seems to want to pick and choose in the literature to support your political views. I do not care. Do you get it? I DO NOT CARE. I am far more interested in things like robust procedures and choice of metrics and so on. Whatever is in the data is there. It will all be obsolete soon when we have genetically-based procedures for individualized health care delivery anyway.--Filll 00:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I told you I believed it was probably true. But slinging charges of racial impurity around in a discussion about race is not the smartest thing you can do. You are going to elicit responses from that. But go ahead and make that argument if you like. I think it is just a simple matter of choosing a metric and measuring distances in a high dimensional space in a biologically meaningful way. It is sort of arbitrary, since Europeans are not "racially pure" and neither are Africans or Chinese or Japanese or anyone. These are just arbitrary directions with substantial error ellipsoids around them in a high dimensional space with nonlinear consequences. So WHAT? It is just math. How much math do you know?--Filll 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• 2)[2] "But wow...some of these people are sure difficult"

Not directed towards you. Have you looked at the rest of the page and the history of the page over the last few months? Do you think you are the only person who wants to unilaterally change the page in some particular direction and threatens other users? Which would be fine, except none of you agree with each other. So if this happens, then fights can and will ensue. I guarantee it.--Filll 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• 3) I've never called you stupid and/or ignorant. I addressed your arguments.

Oh I guess that was just my imagination. It seemed to me you said that I made a stupid mistake for not finding the quote. And you said anyone who did not believe in genetically determined racial boundaries was stupid and ignorant. And I had just been presenting evidence in support of it. And have for months actually. There is plenty of literature supporting this. Considering how the scientific community has not yet reached concensus on that issue, I think that is a bit premature. You might be including a very large swath of the scientific community in that evaluation. I have no personal stake in this however. If new research and new data show sharp boundaries then I have no problem with that. That is how science goes. But to call others stupid and ignorant for not agreeing with you is asking for trouble. And it looks to me that you have bought yourself more than your share of trouble here in a very short period of time.--Filll 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• 4)Even the smartest people can say silly things. It's unreasonable to expect anyone can make perfect arguments about EVERY single subject. So when I call your arguments stupid, I'm not addressing you. However, I admit I could have worded my comments more constructive but given the quotes such as User_talk:Doc_Tropics#Civility_warnings, give me a break.

Do you think that was referring to you? I have no idea where you stand on evolution or creationism or religion. But we have had those people on the page, believe me. You do not read the page and the history? I have my suspicions about white supremacists on the page, but I do not know if you are one and I did not charge you with that. However, we have had a good 10 or more white supremacists on the page and I am tired of them. If you want to be included in that group, then include yourself but I did not put you there. You sure made comments about white racial purity which is a bit inflammatory and just a ludicrous argument to make from a mathematical and scientific point of view. You did not make the black racial purity comments but others sure have and they are just as inflammatory and just as silly.--Filll 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• 5) I've never claimed:

"You claim everyone is against you and out to get you"

This is just another silly and incorrect accusation from you like:

"You think anyone who disagees with you is stupid or ignorant or being uncivil etc."

"He also called me stupid several times and ignorant on the talk pages, apparently for not agreeing with him."

"He also gave me two references, one which supported his position and one which refuted it (he thought they both supported his position I suspect). When this was pointed out, he claimed that the authors of the article that did not support his position were incompetent and did not know the literature as well as he did (even though this was a Nature publication and came after the paper which supported his position)." [3]

So the only pattern I see here is your baseless accusations: [4] [5] Lukas19 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess the other 9 people who have similar complaints about your behavior are just deluded and stupid and ignorant. Well maybe we all are. And you are perfect and never do anything wrong. It is all everyone else's fault. Is that your position? --Filll 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Here's an example of why I had problems...[6] Lukas19 00:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresenting your views

Ok then, Lukas19, what are your views? Should everyone else just go away and leave you to edit all race articles yourself? Why is that it is not just me, but 9 other people that have had serious disagreements with you in about one month. All over racial issues? All with you staking out some position that there are sharp differences between races? Why do you reject evidence to the contrary with plenty of hostility and epithets? Why are you so controversial and in so many fights? Look I have no stake in this. If the science shows there are sharp divisions between the races, then so be it. If it does not, then so be it. I do not really give a darn. All I care about is understanding the science a bit. And trying to make sure all sides are heard in these articles, and so that there is lots of information on all sides that is available for the readers. We should be providing articles with all the basic information and links so that people can dig into them and get more details. But you know there is no consensus scientifically as far as I can tell yet on many racial issues. And there is no consensus socially on many of these issues. So we should provide all sides. Beating the heck out of the other editors and insulting them is really not very helpful, do you think?--Filll 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting me?

Ok on what basis? I am not able to respond at all am I? Have you considered that most of the things you are so upset about WERE NOT AND ARE NOT DIRECTED TOWARDS YOU. You seem to have a very VERY thin skin and take everything in the worst way possible. You want to dance? Let's dance.--Filll 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This policy in a nutshell:

Comment on content, not on the contributor.

See WP:NPA You have made serious personal attacks against many editors. Given the context of what you said to me and the locations of your comments (like right where we were discussing my warnings), I take offense. And I dont want to dance with you. Just note I will report you if you dont cease such behaviour. Lukas19 00:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is the problem here? Just calm down.--Filll 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I will quote you word for word from now on instead of paraphrasing you. But you have to have a bit of a thicker skin. Probably about 3/4 of what you were upset about was not directed at you, but at other editors (black pride people, black supremacists, the falangists, the creationists, right wing religious people, and other assorted extremists etc). I am on that page mainly to try to keep all the groups working together instead of having fights. A few months ago when I arrived, the page was permanently locked and people did nothing but fight. And get each other banned. I personally have hardly edited the article itself at all except to try to correct the English. Even that was very hard to do because it was reverted instantly with so many reversions going on. The English still stinks but I have given up for now. I think you have found some great references and you should find more. We need to have more substantial references. I have no political axe to grind. But we have about 10 or 15 different POV that we are trying to accommodate, and it is not easy. No single group with a single POV can have their own way over the others. We all have to be accommodating and work with each other.--Filll 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning - harassment, NPA

Do not harass other editors. Cease your disruptive and inappropriate placement of civility warnings on Filll's talk page, or I will block you for harassment. If you feel there is a problem, take it to WP:DR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

and stop calling peoples edits stupid, that is a violation of NPa as I'm sure you are aware. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Be civil in your dealings with Wobbles and all other editors as well. I stronly suggest you moderate your tone and try to work with other editors, or you will accomplish nothing but ill will. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)