User talk:Psychohistorian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Psychohistorian! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I had enough. you win

I had enough. You win. You have these article all to yourself. I will no longer waste my time in editing an article in these conditions. All these articles are off my watch list. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paleoconservatism: Amount of Citation Requests

There is an absolutely ridiculous amount of requests for citations in the "Intellectual precursors and modern expositors" sections. I mean, does anyone really doubt that Mel Bradford is connected to paleoconservatism? Plastering the article with citation requests like this is a really irritating and lazy approach, in my view. I should remove them all and request that if anyone has a problem with what has been written, that they raise the issues here on a case by case basis. Maybe someone has gone on the rampage trying to make a point. -Yakuman 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)(language borrowed from the talk section in the Peter Hitchens article).

[edit] Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -Will Beback 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC) "That's your opinion. My opinion is that posting unsourced content is lazy. "

Dozens of instances of requests in a single paragraph is just nuts. As to Wikipedia policy, well, truth is a defense. Is there really any doubt that Mel Bradford influenced paleoconservatism? --Yakuman

[edit] AMA request

Well over a week ago, now, I pointed out that a rather large number of claims made in the Paleoconservative article were unsourced. I stated at the time that I would wait a week and then remove the unsourced claims.

A week passed. In that time, some sources were provided but many of them didn't actually support what they were being used to support. One user, User_talk:Yakuman, removed the ^{[citation needed]} tags saying only that he didn't need to provide sources. I readded them and copied and pasted the relevant Wiki policies from WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. He removed the tags again. I readded them. He removed the tags and put, in some sections where he removed the tags, a

tag. I put additional

tags in the rest of the sections where he had removed ^{[citation needed]} tags. He removed the

tags I had added. I readded them. This was quickly going nowhere and, having found myself in an edit war, I wanted to find an alternative approach to making the article policy compliant, so I asked if he'd like to get some mediation on the issue. He said yes. I made a request to the mediation cabal. User_talk:Yakuman's wrote a post there stating his side. I made a post there clarifying my position. User_talk:Yakuman's next post there was to the effect that he had no faith in the mediation cabal. The entire discussion there is here. User_talk:Cowman109 answered the request for mediation anyway. He made a couple of posts in the talk page for Paleoconservatism requesting me to point out the unsourced claims and reiterating the policy regarding claims needing to be sourced. I replied to the effect that the best way to do that was to readd the ^{[citation needed]} tags to the article and that, to keep things from getting overwhelming, we should hit one section at a time. So, I readded the ^{[citation needed]} tags to the first section. User_talk:Yakuman added sources. I reviewed those sources. They did not support the claims they were being used to support. User_talk:Cowman109 also reviewed the sources and came to the same conclusion. User_talk:Yakuman posted in the article's talk page that he had no faith in the mediation cabal. User_talk:Cowman109 tried to point out to him that he, Cowman109, didn't know Yakuman and, so, had no reason to be biased against him. The end result, however, was that Cowman109 has dropped out of the article's mediation process. Looking for an alternative mediation process, I went to the list of admins and found one. This was User_talk:Voice of All. I posted to his discussion page asking for assistance. Yakuman posted in Voice of All's discussion page behind me explaining his position. Voice of All, however, seems to be quite busy as he hasn't had the time to respond to the issue. User_talk:Yakuman has also taken it upon himself to scroll through my list of contributions so that he might attack me in other article talk pages (such as Affirmative Action in the United States which he then removed). One of the last things Cowman 109 did was point me here for help in addressing this issue, so I'm bringing the whole thing here.

-Psychohistorian 12:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you will find a step by step methodology for resolving disputes here -- Lost^(talk) 12:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Village Pump advised me to create an Rfc. I created an RfC and the response was that sources did need to be added. However, instead of providing them, Yakuman has removed my ^{[citation needed]} tags once more and continues making personal attacks against me.

Hello. I'm Aeon from teh AMA. I will try to help. The first thing I want to know about is the Personal Attacks made agaist you please link me ot the various Pages that have this on it. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The talk page for Paleoconservative is the big one. I also believe that his recent addition of a ^{[citation needed]} tag in Anchor baby following my addition of a wikilink and his edit to the Talk:Affirmative Action in the United States article [here] were similarly motivated with an end towards harassing me (I will point out that he edited this particular comment to remove it after making it).

The talk page for the admin Voice of all includes an additional accusation. -Psychohistorian 23:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article talk page. There was a lot of back a forth there. I'm my opinion you came borderline to violating WP:CIVIL (I don't think you crossed the line but came close). I do feel that Yakuman has mildly violated WP:CIVIL in those remarks he has made. I will check out VOA's page and I will also ask Cowman a few questions to see how he felt (from a mediator standpoint) things went. The Difs of Personal Attacks and Incivility that would help me a great deal.

Oh and when linking pages, If it is a user User: needs to be in there to like linking to my page you would put User:Aeon1006 Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I have checked VOA's Page and Yakuman has made a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. I will caution him not to doso again. If he does it again tell me and I will report it to the SYSOPs. Also he is starting to get close to violating WP:STALK. If he keeps flowing you around tell me. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 23:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I am getting the difs you requested all together. We have the article's unsourced claims to deal with as well. -Psychohistorian 23:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok but I recomend settling the personal dispute you are in first (prolonged conflict drags down articles). Once I have the difs we can see what type of DR step is needed for this. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've only gone back to when Cowman posted the following quote Cowman posted on 18:34, 28 August 2006 "..remembebr to focus on content, not on the contributor. ." I've also included those of my own quotes which might be seen as attacks and there is an anon whose comments I also included.

• Yakuman posted on 22:11, 28 August 2006 "..someone who seems obsessed.." [[1]]

• Yakuman 23:42, 28 August 2006 "Why did you pick this article for a pedantic rampage? I submit that your challenges are not serious" [[2]]

• Yakuman 22:41, 29 August 2006 "You're not seeking verification. You're obsessed." [[3]]

• Yakuman 22:56, 29 August 2006 "I oppose your proposed changes because all your content will be unsourced, therefore I have every right to start deleting. Ha! " [[4]] (note that this is in another article that he followed me to)

• Yakuman 23:16, 29 August 2006 "..except for cites and making Psycho behave,.." [[5]]

• anon (74.134.153.56) 31 August 2006 "..your overaggressive requests for citations.." [[6]]

• Yakuman 04:47 31 August 2006 "I submit that Psychohistorian does not have legitimate concerns." [[7]]

• Psychohistorian 14:40 31 August 2006 ""Why are you distracting those who do have an interest" (I'm quoting the anon editor here) - am I distracting you by working on making the article verifiable and policy compliant? If thats the case, then I question what your goals are here" [[8]]

• anon (69.128.111.134) 16:12, 31 August 2006 "It would seem, then, that you are not assuming good faith and are, therefore, in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps it's time that an administrator step in here." [[9]]

• Yakuman 19:20, 31 August 2006 "Psycho wants countless citations," [[10]]

• edit comment for Paleoconservatism article dated 23:28 28 August 2006 by Yakuman, "One banner is enough, monomaniac"

Ok as a whole that is a violation on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Also WP:AGF comes to mind as well. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is mostly a conduct conflict.

OK the DR steps you have done so far are MEDCAB and Article RfC correct? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

MEDCAB, RfC, and I've tried to bring in a third party admin (Voice of All). You mentioned WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and borderline violation of WP:STALK (on which there are three seperate instances which need to looked at - user:Voice of All and Affirmative action in the United States as well as his recent action in Anchor baby). This is a pattern of harassment. BUT, I still want the Paleoconservative article to comply with policy. This isn't just about user conduct. -Psychohistorian 09:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is understandalbe but he is the only user that is in dispute with you. Handle the disput and you can help get the article back up to speed with out problems. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello do you still need AMA services? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave this alone for now. I'm really just drained out on Wikipedia. But when I'm ready to come back, if the problem comes back, we can address it then - if it continues. Thank you for the time you've spent with me on this issue, knowing that someone is there to help has helped me keep my sanity. -Psychohistorian 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inquiry about 198.97.67.59

Do you know if all the edits from that IP address have been yours? JoshuaZ 01:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They have not. That IP is shared. Why? -Psychohistorian 01:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There was some concern about the nature of some of the IP's edits, some of which were POV to the point of constituting vandalism. Thanks for clearing that up. JoshuaZ 16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can tell me which edits you are talking about, I can tell you if I wrote them.-Psychohistorian 11:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Irreducible complexity

May I urge you to greater patience? You are proposing what some clearly see as a significant change to the article. This article has been highly controversial in the past. Significant changes deserve significant discussion. You clearly believe that you are in the right. I've watched Felonious's edits over time and believe that he is equally convinced. Take the time to explain your case and then give him the chance to respond. Please remember that few people can afford to watch Wikipedia for hours every day. They must squeeze in their volunteer hours between regular jobs, family commitments, etc. I've read your point and am studying it. It will likely take me several days to do the necessary research. Others deserve the same chance to respond.

This article has been stable for months. The encyclopedia won't suffer greatly if we take a few days or even weeks to make sure that we get it right. Give the rest of the community a chance to comment. If no one responds in a week, then it is generally considered acceptable to be bold. But a threat to take unilateral action in 24 hours is faster than most of us can support. Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen far too many times when "taking time for discussion" or "doing an RfC" becomes an excuse for leaving the content as is because noone responds to the discussion or the RfC. I have no intention of having that happen on an article which is so obviously in error. If you want me to wait indefinitely, the best way is to revert the content to the way it was before the reversions and wait for comment. That's what I tried to do, but you wouldn't have any of it. -Psychohistorian 18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

By long tradition on Wikipedia, when there is a good-faith dispute over a significant change to an article, the default state of the article is almost always the version that pre-dated the dispute. To do otherwise would have serious adverse consequences on our ability to fend off those edit wars which are initiated by partisans and others who do not share the goals of the encyclopedia. I believe your comments to be in good faith but we have to hold to a consistent precedent.

By the way, it would help a great deal if you could reference a published analysis making the distinction that you are describing. Without some independent reference from a reliable source, there is always a concern that we are including prohibited original research. With a reference, I suspect that your change would be quickly verified and accepted. Rossami (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I (or anyone else here) does yet understand the distinction which you are trying to make. But if I'm guessing correctly then the citation that we need is one verifiably showing that the phrase "irreducible complexity" is in fact used in any context other than that defined by Behe. And more specifically, it should show that such use of the term predated Behe's use. Rossami (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Illegal Immigration

Can you explain how using "immigrant" is non-neutral? [11] As I understand the words, 'immigrant' and 'alien' have identical meaning, except for 'alien' generally connoting someone who is unwelcome, and 'immigrant' just meaning one who immigrates. I was thinking of copy-editing the article, but I am hesitant of making edits which might be reverted. Rintrah 11:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied in your talk page.-Psychohistorian 11:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the explanation. Rintrah 11:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Illegal immigration

You mean m:The Wrong Version? -- Steel 17:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am acting within policy. I don't give a monkey's toss what reversion started the war. -- Steel 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my apology for snapping at you. I was in the heat of the moment and out of line.-Psychohistorian 18:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

you may want to check out this RFC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenia

[edit] 3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Will Beback 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You've violated the 3RR on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(immigration). Please revert your last edit or you may be blocked. -Will Beback 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing your last revert. Please read the 3RR policy before accusing me of violating it. -Will Beback 17:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We can let an uninvolved administrator sort it out: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Psychohistorian reported by User:Will Beback (Result:) -Will Beback 18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race-based articles

Ok, we get it. You don't think race exists. I also agree that race is a largely artificial concept based on social and political constructs. However articles such as Caucasoid race are supposed to document previously-used concepts. The word Caucasoid was invented by people in academia, not by random people on the street. The fact that the concept has been proven false doesn't change the fact that it used to be a commonly accepted term within academia. There's already a sentence explaining the AAA position about race. There's no reason to repeat it twice with different wording. Spylab 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple paragraphs in the White people article shouldn't be there. There is already an article about genetic views on race. Your addition to the White people article, Pschohistorian, about how race isn't genetically based is a tangent. It takes up a large part of the article and isn't directly related to defining whites.--Dark Tichondrias 10:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

+Whether or not I believe race exists is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what the mainstream authorities on anthropology have to say about the issue. I am all for the article exploring the historical development of the term. I want the article to explore how the term has been used and has changed over time. But you are mistaken if you think that early anthropologists weren't all 'armchair anthropologists'. Extensive rigorous field work didn't start happening until Malinowski. -Psychohistorian 18:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing with that. My point is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to fit a certain format. First you succinctly define the topic, expand on that definition, and then explore the criticisms, exceptions and variations after that. There also should not be repetition of similar statements using different wording. If a sentence or paragraph is written properly, the point will get across clearly the first time. Spylab 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to votespam here but you might be interested in this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_african_type as it is the most contentious debate on race articles I've seen yet. Cheers. L0b0t 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prognathism

Hello Psychohistorian, I see that you are interested in race-related articles and also contributed to the article about Craniofacial Anthropology. I would appreciate it if you could have a look at the content dispute @Prognathism. Thanks in advance. CoYep 16:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hello, I'm going to be mediating your case. However, I'm a bit confused, did you mean White People, as you said at the Mediation Cabal, or White people, as I had understood. Please be aware that I am only a new mediatior, and this is my first case. | AndonicO Talk 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'll start reading the article later today. Please read WP:NPOV. It would help for the mediation. | AndonicO Talk 12:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, please add White people to your watchlist, if it isn't already. | AndonicO Talk 13:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Psychohistorian. I just wanted to tell you that I have created the subpage where the mediation will take place. You may see it on the discussion page of the article White people, in my message. Please sign on the "Participants" section whenever you are ready. | AndonicO Talk 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Can you provide a link to 3rr rule? Thulean 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White people article dispute

Thulean has initiated and RFI against me. You may want to comment on it. --Sugaar 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Thulean has also initiated an WP:PAIN against LSLM. Thulean has been reported for complex vandalism WP:RFI. You may want to drop by and say what you have to say or provide evidence. --Sugaar 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling for multiple parti complaint against Thulean for provacative vandilisations White people article--Euskata 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Read NPOV

Hello again Psychohistorian. Please read WP:NPOV so the mediation can begin. Please do this quickly, as the protection will probably not be lifted until this is over. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack

With regards to your comments on Talk:White_people#General_Comments: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Thulean 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:White_people#General_Comments, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Thulean 23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read all what Psychohistorian said there and there's not a single phrase that could constitute personal attack. Instead posting unjustified warnings, wikilawyering, etc. can constitute harassment and break several WP policies.

Also Psychohistorian has the right to remove these "warnings" as long as he's read them. He can do so even with legit warnings, which these are not. --Sugaar 13:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Due to your continued personal attacks, you've been reported [12]

Thulean 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is now, by my count, three people Thulean has reported as attacking him all of whom are editors who have been working on the White people article, all of whom disagree with his edits, all of whom have been independently accussed by him within the past two weeks or so. It is our opinion that he is using the RFI process as a means to harass editors he disagrees with. There are three seperate issues each between two users and the only common denominator is that, in all three issues, one of the two users is Thulean.

I continue to support 100% what I wrote. I did not attack him. Saying that someone is ignorant with regards to a subject is not the same as saying that they are stupid and I've never said he's stupid. However, I want to see his ongoing efforts to use RFIs as an attempt to harass others to stop. I realize that no admin can make that happen, but I do want it noted that he is engaging in this tactic repeatedly and, I suspect, will continue to do so in the future.-Psychohistorian 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I welcome anyone to read Talk:White_people. It's not my fault if several people cant remain civil.

• And it's not only your claims about ignorancy. The whole tone in your responses like:

"However, as this may be too complicated for you to grasp (and an indepth discussion of textual analysis with someone like yourself would be sure to try my patience)"

"If this point continues to elude you, we can bring in a third party opinion who may be inclined to simplify these issues to the point where you can understand them."

"while I grant that it might seem that way to someone who is not as knowledgable or comfortable with a subject as is the majority of people"

"Since this fact is eluding you, I'll see if I can find a third party who can simplify it and put it at your level."

clearly violates this section of WP:NPA  :

Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

Thulean 16:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thulean, I never once said that I was better than you. I just alluded to the fact that I'm more informed than you on this subject - considering I've spent the greater part of two decades of my adult life studying this subject and have a degree in it and you haven't graduated high school yet, that's an accurate statement. To use an analogy, assume a person has spent the greater part of two decades studying advanced physics and then he's put in the position of showing a young man that gravity is a constant, but the kid refuses to listen to any number of sources the person provides on algebra and, in fact, throws the sources across the room, cherry picks them to construct half baked ludicrous arguments, and, when quotes are pulled out of those sources and shown to him, he ignores them and continues to cherry pick. Calling the kid at that point "ignorant" is not an attack. The person pointing out that he no longer wishes to attempt to educate such a beligerantly uninformed kid (such as when I stated, "an indepth discussion of textual analysis with someone like yourself would be sure to try my patience" or when I said, ""If this point continues to elude you, we can bring in a third party opinion who may be inclined to simplify these issues to the point where you can understand them."") is not an attack. You are upset because there have been several people who have come in to work on that article (including a geneticist and an anthropologist) who are actually informed on the subject and have pointed out that you are wrong. You've managed to chase some of them off with your behavour, and those editors who remain who disagree with you are now having RFIs brought against them.-Psychohistorian 17:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Simply this "However, as this may be too complicated for you to grasp" is an attack on my intelligence. And instead of "Since this fact is eluding you, I'll see if I can find a third party who can simplify it and put it at your level.", you could have said "maybe we can discuss this with a third party". The whole tone in your responses is not only amusing, it also violates WP:NPA and I already said that I'm not interested at your self propaganda. And I've graduated from high school so I appreciate it if you can keep your speculations to yourself. Thulean 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it is worthwhile to teach calculas to someone who doesn't understand algebra? Calculas is too complicated for them to grasp. That doesn't mean they're stupid, just not ready for the subject material. They particularly aren't ready for the subject matter if they are being beligerantly ignorant. Frankly, you are in no position to criticize someone's tone as, in my opinion, you and Dark T are the instigators of the hostile environment in that discussion page and your attempts to use RFIs as a means to harass are not just signs of wikilawyering, but signs of an earnest attempt to perpetuate the hostile environment you've created.-Psychohistorian 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Medation has begun here. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Psychohistorian! Could you please update your position on the White people article at the mediation page? Thanks. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3R

May I remind you of the 3 revert rule. You may only conduct three reverts according to WP policy- see 3RR. As of now you have 1 revert left.
BTW: The info in the infobox is taken from the article itself! You do not own this article and it ought to have a template like all other people articles. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 19:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that the vast majority of Whites live in Europe and the Americas. As for the template I have cited a widely used textbook and the template does include the Bai. Read the template carefully and you'll see that it clearly states the exsistance of smaller populations from around the globe in addition the world's largest populations found in Europe and North America. It also states that Whites may be of any religion. The infobox also explicitly states that the definition of White varies. In other words, the infobox is as PC as it gets. I understand you're pretty new here, but if you continue to remove valid information I will start an RfC and we can let other users decide. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly we need to make generalizations in the White poeple article, otherwise we might as well delete it. I have provided sources generalizations that will inform our reader in the template. I have made it clear that those are generalizations. Would like to start an RfC? Becuase if you keep removing sources valid information that is helpful to our users I'll start one. It is the users that suffering from this semantics-fighting. Signature^brendelNow under review! 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, first revert. You changed the template, so you also now have three reverts left. (it's like pressing a reset button) This time I'm gonna to lose because I made the first move. So you can go ahead and revert the template now, I won't revert. I will however join mediation and start an RfC. Signature^brendelNow under review! 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Regarding your comments on Talk:White people and User talk:Sugaar:

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! Thulean 23:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poem

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

(Martin Niemöller)

Just a classical poem for meditation of all. --Sugaar 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always liked that poem, but its not really relevant here. This isn't about polemic. This is about not allowing a group of people to impose unreferenced, unverifiable content on the article by wikilawyering Wikipedia policy. -Psychohistorian 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Shell Kinney has opened an RfC on my behaviour. You can endorse either view or comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sugaar. --Sugaar 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of paragraphs

So, far today you have deleted whole paragraphs from two of the articles on my watchlist, stating that they were unsourced. Please do not delete whole paragraphs before allowing for discussion on the talk page. I'm sure that you are only trying to improve these articles, but deleting whole paragraphs of unsourced material does not accomplish a thing. Someone at sometime thought this information was important and probably did not know how to insert references. Instead of deleting, could you please either place a ^{[citation needed]} tag within the paragraph, or put the deletion up for discussion. Thank you. Chicaneo 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response to my talk page. I had been looking at Wikipedia: Editing policy and also at the etiquitte guidelines. I was not aware of Reliable sources and now I am. You are correct, it does say "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." And based on your rude comment: "The fact that you did not avail yourself of that opportunity is really not my problem." you appear to need little excuse to be agressive. BTW, the paragraph(s) you deleted from the Terminology section of the Illegal immigration to the United States article did not have the fact tags anywhere near them, but I suppose you would claim that the generic tag at the top of the article would suffice? Chicaneo 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's done - water under the bridge. I'm not going to get into it anymore. I don't know what makes you think that I am pro illegal alien. Perhaps because I self-identify as a Chicana? Let me make my position clear. I am pro NPOV. Unless a term can be found in a federal law or official federal policy then as far as I'm concerned it's all POV - illegal alien, undocumented worker, undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant - all of it. I was born in Texas, both my parents were born in Texas, of my four grandparents two were born in Texas and two -legally- immigrated to Texas in the early 1920s/maybe late 1910s I'd have to look it up, to avoid political persecution in Mexico. I do not engage in groupthink, my ideals and values are my own, and I think you would be suprised at my view of the current immigration situation, and probably about my stance on other issues as well. This type of idependantly acquired ideology is the essence of being a Chicana and why I identify as such. Without getting into it too much, the curent immigration situation is a huge government failure on all fronts, within all parties, at all levels, which has been stewing and growing since way before the Bracero program many years ago. Our government's denial, neglect, yellow-bellied, no balls, need to remain middle of the road, please everyone, don't make waves or I'll lose votes attitude about this issue is what has brought us to where we are today. Chicaneo 14:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't engage in groupthink. I did not understand why you thought I was pro illegal alien and I -wondered- if -perahps-, -maybe- it was because of my identity as a Chicana. This self adopted label has caused problems for me in the past and I did not assume anything about you for certain, just wondered if this label was causing problems for me again. If you want to call that groupthink, OK, suit yourself. Now you are saying that I'm pro-poverty. I don't even know how you arrived at that. We have not discussed poverty or reasons why people choose to enter the US illegally so I'm not sure what you mean especially since you don't know my position on poverty. I'm glad you are aware that there are divergent opinions among Hispanics regarding immigration issues, not everybody is. Again, I am pro NPOV and I believe that -sometimes- labeling isn't in the best interests of an article's neutrality. This is one of those -sometimes- cases. I don't believe that this makes me pro poverty or pro illegal alien, just neutral. Chicaneo 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the same about your edits. "Your edits are biased as well as your comments regarding them." From where I am, they appear to be biased so far beyond anti-illegal alien that they border on prejudice and discrimination. -Perhaps-, -maybe- because your position is so far to one side, you can not see how close mine is to neutrality? Maybe not. -Maybe- I am not as neutral as I want to be or think I am, and I am as blinded by my own egocentric paradigm as I believe you are by yours. But none of that matters, because you and I are both entitled to our beliefs, no matter what they are, no matter how far to the left or right they are, no matter how "fringe" they are, and no matter who agrees or disagrees. We just have to make sure they don't spill over into Wiki's articles because that's the rule. "A pro-illegal alien stance is pro-poverty." Huh, I'll have to think about that one - it's news to me. Chicaneo 21:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of the of the chronic and pervasive corruption of the Mexican government. I am also aware that the Mexican government has neglected its duties to provide economic growth, stability, and opportunities for Mexican citizens. I am well aware of the class and poverty issues which have arisen as a result of this neglect and that this neglect is -the- primary source of the poverty and class issues there. I am well aware that poverty and class have a direct correlation to illegal immigration to the US from Mexico and other countries to the South. I am also well aware of how a weak border, not only between the US and Mexico, but all borders in all countries, affects labor migration patterns, refugee infiltration, and violation of immigration and emigration laws. You are correct in that I have never studied dialetical materailism, circumscription theory, nor Borjas. I was planning to read Borjas when I got to editing the controversy & viewpoints section of the Illegal immigration to the US article because that's where he is first cited, but I suppose I will read him and materials related to dialectical materialism & circumscription theory before I move on to the economic impact section instead. These materials do seem relevant to the economics debate. By prejudice I meant a bias against members of the group which you refer to as "illegal aliens". Your insistance that everyone else adopt this term as well seems, to me, extreme and, well....., prejudiced. I am of the belief that this label is POV. (Given the colloquial understanding of the word "alien", it seems to me to be a very dehumanizing noun for a homo sapien, especially when co-joined with the adjective "illegal". My hypothesis is that a study of the etymology of the phrase "illegal alien" will reveal that it is relatively new and also an American construct, thus lending even more credence to my position that it is POV. But that's another debate that I'll have to save until I've researched the issue further.) I am not implying that you do not have a reason for your bias/prejudice, only that you are in fact biased against the group of humans that you refer to as illegal aliens. Perhaps after reading the materials we discussed I will understand your position better. Chicaneo 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Two previous posts from you included:

"Of all the people working against correcting poverty (that is, all the people who are pro-illegal alien) who are working on this article, I've found you to be..."

"Your edits are biased as well as your comments regarding them. They are biased towards being pro-illegal alien."

First, I am not biased toward "illegal aliens", illegal immigration and correcting poverty. You seem to be confusing my recognition that my own personal views should not be factored into Wiki articles with my attempts to be NPOV and my edits aimed at such goal with approval and support for illegal immigration and the population which engages in this activity. I understand why you can't make that distinction given your negative experiences with previous editors and the fact the very concept and practice of Wiki gives editors the ability to present unverifiable information about themselves. In short, Wiki fosters mistrust. In my case I would urge you to "assume good faith" if you are able to do so given that you do not know me personally.

I agree with you, "all labels are, to some extent, POV." After all I did say in a previous post to you:

"...as far as I'm concerned it's all POV - illegal alien, undocumented worker, undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant - all of it."

If your linguist friend is correct, then the term chosen for those who illegally enter another country for whatever reason, should be the lesser of all evils. I beleive that the term "illegal alien" is not the lesser of all evils. If you will humor me, I will attempt to explain why, and I have a gut feeling that this is going to be long. First, given the colloquial understanding of the word "alien", it seems to me to be a very dehumanizing noun for a homo sapien, especially when co-joined with the adjective "illegal". The term "alien" conjures mental images of extraterrestrials, Hollywood monsters, and the literature of H.G. Wells & Ray Bradbury. .... Oh yes, and Marvin the Martian.  :) Although "alien" is used in policy documents and is correctly descriptive, it does evoke these images for many. The term "illegal" is also a loaded word. It evokes mental images of criminals, thugs, and those who intentionally do harm to others. When these two terms are co-joined the worst of the worst is imaginable and when the term is used frequently and pervasively it molds perceptions and fosters fear, irrationality, and such conspiracy theories as a "Mexican invasion", collectively among the masses and individually among the common man.

Here are some thoughts: The very fact that the term is correctly descriptive and is also used in policy documents amounts to an appeal to authority. Generally, an idea presented often and pervasively is assumed to be true and thus the negative images conjured are also viewed as truth. Because loaded, emotional terms can evoke negative images a certain value or reference towards "bad" or "evil" (as in not "good", i.e., the "good" vs. "bad" / "good" vs. "evil" tautology - it is specifically an "exclusive disjunction") the term becomes demonizing. When an individual, group, or ideology is demonized, viewed as threatening and feared, emotions are evoked and the ability for rational assessment, rational problem solving, and obtaining workable, pragmatic solutions is significantly diminished or even entirely eliminated. Negative labeling can encourage name calling (slurs), stereotyping, scapegoating, transference, and rationalization. Thus negative labeling discourages people from facing the problem and fixing it because they are focused on assessing blame, and the resulting biases, rather than on owning the problem.

Analysis: OK, lets see, we have appeal to authority, negative images viewed as truth, a frame of reference geared towards "bad" or "evil", a group demonized and feared, blame assessed, denial of ownership, and the lack of rational assessment - - this amounts to propoganda, "grey" propoganda to be specific. Assuming this very long string of logical arguments (although you are free to view them as illogical) is valid then promotion of the term "illegal alien" amounts to promotion of propoganda and indoctrinization. And to use the term "illegal alien" makes one a cog, a pinion, in the great propoganda machine. Being a knowing and willing component of this machine, makes one a impartial manipulator of public opinion. Being an unwitting component of this machine makes one an impartial promoter of public opinion who is manipulated by the machine. I am a promoter of independant thinking and I will not participate in, encourage, or endorse the machine. To so is to fail my fellow man because it discourages independent thought, encourages groupthink, promotes kowtow (submission) to the ideals and values of others, and makes one a pawn and an easy victim to the predatory, covetous goals of other individuals, groups, and sometimes governments.

Solution: Since it is all POV to me anyway, the thing to do would be to choose a term (other than "illegal alien") which is the lesser of all evils. Which term is that? I don't know, but I'm flexible and open to debate and discussion because I haven't disected it yet. Weighing in the views of others would help me to form a position of my own. Chicaneo 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"like calling a child molester a "sexually liberated individual" and "...as for appeals to authority, if we are going to use a common term, we must appeal to something and I'd much rather appeal to an authority/expert than to something/someone who is not an authority/expert, but merely an activist."

First, your argument regarding the child molester is weak. Child molesters have a specific label that is defined and agreed upon by experts and categorized in the DSM-IV as a mental disorder. That label is pedophile and the disease is pedophilia. "Illegal alien" is not a term that is agreed upon by experts in the study of immigration and your intent of appealing to authority rather than a mere activist is not materializing.

"Immigrants are people who enter the country with the intent to follow the laws of the land and embrace the local culture (notice I said "embrace", not "replace their own"

Second, because you do not recognize the waves of people who enter other countries illegally as migration and immigration, nor do you fully understand the intentions of these people, it seems pretty obvious that not only is your study of the subject incomplete, but also that you are caught up in the fear that using the term "illegal alien" fosters. There are other people besides Borjas who are experts in immigration and border crossing. I'd like you to read Guests and Aliens by Saskia Sassen. Before you balk at the suggestion please remember that I have agreed to read Borjas and read up on dialectical materialism and circumscription theory. That is because I am able to realize that my self education regarding the subject is incomplete and also because I do not have a pathological need to be correct.

"propaganda involves the blurring of the line between two distinct categories".

Third, your inability to make the connection between the harm which can be done to our society and the use term "illegal alien" is an indication to me that you do not fully understand propaganda theory. It might help if you read up on that.

"That's what you are trying to do by attempting to confuse immigrants and illegal aliens." and "you are claiming that we should be politically correct"

Fourth, your belief that the use of any other term besides "illegal alien" is just an attempt to be politically correct demonstrates that you are unfamiliar with social construction of reality theory. You don't have to, but it would be helpful if you would read the works of Berger and Luckman (Peter and Tom I believe) who are widely considered to be conservative, and also Eric Heubeck. And I'd advise you not to take the reviews and criticisms of this theory which can be found on the net as true until you have read the theories and can make a judgment for yourself. This is what I intend to do with Borjas, who is widely criticized. Controversy does not make fallacy.

"You're on very weak ground here."

Finally, we may have reached a stalemate. We are talking, which is very good, but we are talking past each other. Note I did not say we were talking over each other's heads. I believe that we are both very capable of understanding and synthesizing complex theories and until we are both up to speed on the knowledge that the other has, and we are able to fill in our own gaps, then I don't believe that we can have a meaningful debate on the use of the label "illegal alien".

If you want to continue this discussion, then I'll be happy to do so, although it will have to take place at a slower pace. Otherwise I'm going to get back to my Wiki to do list. My time on the internet is limited because of my other obligations and this discussion has taken up time that I need to work on my to do list and tend to my obligations.

You seem to be a reasonable person and for now I' m hoping that we can agree to disagree. 70.120.70.30 15:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC) aka Chicaneo 20:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian, I received a degree in Sociology, minor in Psychology in 1984. I changed my major way too many times and have way too many hours in Urban Planning, Anthropology, Criminal Justice, and Political Science. I have completed two years of law school at a prestigious private school, but I had to leave because I decided that I did not want to go to hell. ;) I am also a few hours shy of a masters degree in Special Education with a focus on emotionally disturbed kids, but after doing my student teaching, I'm not sure that I want to continue in that field either. I plan to enroll next semester (part time) to finish up my degree, but I doubt I will seek employment in the field, at least not in teaching large groups of nutty kids. Perhaps if I can find a position with a 1:1, or 1:3 ratio, or even with an assistant, that would be OK. There are positions like that out there. Right now I'm in a position where I don't have to work. I am focused on being a full-time mom and wife. My kids are school aged, one is a teenager, and thankfully they are not emotionally disturbed, although after hanging out with me a few more years they may be. :) Sometimes I wonder about my teenager though. I'm also focused on helping my husband with his private practice. He is a Licenced Clinical Social Worker with an advanced clinical practitioner designation and I do his billing and accounts receivables as well as help him prepare for court cases relating to custody, incarceration, and involuntary commitment. I apologize that my formal education never included circumscription theory nor dialetical materials, and if it did I have forgotten all about it. Age and time do things like that. But like I said before, I am willing to read and learn new material. I believe that education does not stop or begin with a formal degree. I have responses to your other comments, but I do not have time for them right now, I am on my way to take one kid to an eye dr appt and I have an appt with the Vice Principal at my son's high school because the little weenie has been skipping the classes he does not like. If you will be patient, I will answr your other comments either late 2day or 2morrow. Chicaneo 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macroevolution/Speciation

With regards to your question at Talk:ID, in general there isn't a single process which creates a species. Rarely can you speak of one species "mutating" into another species - single mutations don't lead to speciation. Rather, you might have a situation where two phenotypes are favoured in a population, but where intermediates are not favoured - e.g., heavy metal tolerance in grasses - tolerance is energetically expensive, so it's selected against in individuals which grow in uncontaminated soils, but reduced tolerance is toxic in contaminated soils. Crossbreeding is likely to produce reduced fitness, so anything which reduces the likelihood of interbreeding is likely to increase fitness. Guettarda 15:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergence

Thank you for appending your remarks on the Talk:Emergence page. At some point Fourdee will release his death-grip from the article and then improving it can proceed. Hu 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent Ad Hominem

With regards to your comments on Emergence: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

"Could you please, then, explain what Fourdee's side is? His inability to express it clearly is starting to make me feel like I'm playing whack-a-mole."

[previous warning by fourdee]: "The above, for example, is ad hominem: attributing abilities or lack thereof (this is the second or third genuine ad hominem for you; a wikilawyer would have you plastered with warnings)."

"Okay, so you are using the term [scientic method] as it is used by the uninformed masses and as it is taught in freshman level science classes. I was going a bit deeper than that."

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Emergence, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.

"Interesting little conundrum you've presented me, Fourdee. I can either side with you, an anonymous editor on Wikipedia who seems to know very little about science (given that you are belittling the role of philosophy in science, have had to have it pointed out to you that you were using the term 'accuracy' when you meant 'precision', etc.), or "

"I just pointed out how scientifically illiterate that is. [...] It really would help this article if the editors working on it were educated on the subject of the article and related fields."

-- Fourdee 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fourdee's Noticeboard charge (unnotified)

Fourdee has placed a report for intervention on Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard against Psychohistorian and has not had the courtesy to notify him.

1) Fourdee placed a strong condemnation on Psychohistorian's Talk page, using both np2 and np3 tags in the same comment. It is an abuse of the intent of the tags to place an npa3 tag in the same message as an npa2.

2) Then Fourdee deleted four of Psychohistorian's comments [13] after interpreting them as a personal attack. That interpretation is open to debate and in my opinion Fourdee is being sensitive for effect as a way to continue his argumentation.

3) I reverted the deletions with the explanation "You may not edit other people's remarks. It is not for you to play censor." [14] The Undo accidentally deleted a small comment of his that he had combined with the deletions.

4) Fourdee again deleted the comments [15] with the explanation "you are again mistaken about the usual practice on wikipedia, which is to delete ad hominem attacks."

5) I restored the comments a second time [16] explaining that it is not usual practice, referring him to the actual page: "Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks is guideline not policy. Further, it "should be used sparingly"."

6) Fourdee deleted the comments a third time [17] with the argumentative statement taunting me: "care to go for 3? attacks deleted again."

7) Note: Fourdee violates several provisions of the WP:RPA guideline in going too far (guideline quotes in italics):

• Claiming it is usual Wikipedia practice when in fact it is extremely rare, should be "used sparingly", "is controversial" and "a clear consensus did not emerge".

• "It should, at most, be interpreted strictly", meaning that the rare occasion where it is appropriate to remove personal attacks is when they are severely personal and uncontestably an attack, i.e. egregious abuse and not strenuous debate.

• Deleting instead of refactoring. "Removing an entire comment is almost always poor form."

• Deleting and rebutting in the same edit.

• Deleting a remark referring to editors in general, i.e. not personal.

• Deleting remarks so that the remaining portion of the user's commentary is stripped of context.

• When such removals are contested, "it's best to let the disputed comment stand, allowing other editors to judge for themselves".

• Not including a link back to the original version with each deletion.

Clearly in this case, it would have been best to leave the original remarks untouched.

8) He then placed npa2 and npa3 tags on my talk page, which are completely unwarranted, under the heading Ad hominem by proxy. I was not supporting or denying PsychoHistorian's statements, I was simply reverting Fourdee's censorship, so I am not guilty of "ad hominem by proxy".

9) Psychohistorian reverted Fourdee's deletion of some of his remarks.

10) Then a mere ten minutes later Fourdee placed this notice here.

11) This is not the first time that Fourdee has edited other user's comments, deleting ones that he found unfavorable,[18] though after it was reverted and pointed out, he did later claim it was an accident.[19]

12) Finally, it gives some perspective to note that Fourdee has latched onto the Emergence article with a fierceness not often seen on Wikipedia. He initiated the whole dispute with a heavyhanded application of 54 disputatious tags onto the article, then unilaterally and without notification took it to Page Protection where he strenuously argued for it to be frozen, only to shortly thereafter call it unfortunate that it was frozen into his edit state, since the other editors all backed off. He has argued frequently and forcefully on the Talk pages, even over philosophical terminology that he admits has no bearing on the article.

My Conclusion: Fourdee's claim is unfounded and should be disregarded as an escalation of his argumentativeness.

— Hu 04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergence Frustration

I'm really sorry that you've gotten frustrated with the Emergence article. I understand what that's like, as I've been involved with the RfC process off and on, and even dealt with moronic college underclassman that thought it was their duty to "simplify" (read: fark up) physics articles so that they were "easier to understand" (read: inaccurate and misleading). It really sucks, however if people with expertise don't take a stand, Wikipedia will turn into a Consensus reality, as posited by Stephen Colbert. I'm in the minority of people here that think that people who are non-experts should rightly back off from people who actually know what they are talking about (in this case, I do not, but I have firsthand experience and considerable formal training with some of the articles I've edited).

I think one of the problems here (other than the frustration on both sides, and how it was played out) is that you have formal training in a field that is (at least, to my knowledge) considered "fringe" thinking. Or, rather, I should say that it is trying to mature into something that is rather like Classical Science, as it were, but has yet to really establish itself. I would not put it in the same category as creationism or UFO people, but a lot of fringe thinkers utilize concepts of Systems Science to make their points about metaphysics (this may, or may not be an abuse, I am not certain about that myself), and people like Stephen Wolfram hardly help things with their behavior etc either. I am not sure what the official policy on Wikipedia is about dealing with a protoscience like Systems Science is (maybe you know, or could help gather a group of people to form such a policy), but I do think it's very dangerous to mix something that does not have a proven track record with more classical (if limited) methods. I think Fourdee agrees with this and is very skeptical of the role Systems Science should play in the world (as am I, though I try to be polite about it so as to not sound offensive or insult something someone has dedicated themselves to), and sees the Systems Science experts the same as you might see, say, an expert in Astrology. That may not be fair, but I think it is understandable. I would trust an expert in Systems Science about topics within the field, but not necessarily without. Also, what are generally known as "philosophers" (sorry it's hard to make the distinction correctly as Science is a type of philosophy, yet most scientists don't really think about the philosophy of science, just following its methodologies to discover the results) make problematic statements that can only be verified in so much as they are not self-contradictory. I, myself, don't hate philosophy (indeed my father has a degree in it, though he puts rooves on houses now, which I find amusingly fitting) but I am skeptical of statements that are not falsifiable - I don't find them very useful.

I hope you'll continue to work with us on the Emergence article - I think there's actually been a lot of stuff brought up in the debate (I might go back through that and pull out the best stuff on each side if I hget a chance) and I'd like to see some of that there. I really, really, really think we do need credible, referenced sources, as Emergence is very complicated, and I don't think we should be trusting our own judgement on the topic, but rather those of people with far more experience than us, whose statements have been vetted by their peers. I know that limits our options considerably, but I think that asking someone like Fourdee to look up sources for something that is not part of Classical Science is unproductive, and I would really like to see the "burden of proof", as it were, put onto those who are asserting things in the article. I also agree with Fourdee that some things might be better to be direct quotes from "reputable" sources, rather than something we all try to throw together to please everyone. The article might be less well written that way, but it makes less room for error and keeps things moving.

I'm sorry if I've played any role in your frustration - I want Wikipedia to be a rewarding activity for everyone involved (except the vandals, they can go fark themselves). Please let me know how I can help make things better for all involved here (regardless of what was said or done before). Also please forgive me for "siding" with Fourdee, I'm sorry but I do think he makes a lot of excellent points (if not always in a non confrontational manner). I think many of the points you raise are also very valid, but I think that you should be honest with yourself about the role that Systems Science currently plays in modern thought. I also wish Fourdee would take the effort to figure out how we should treat Systems Science, however I can't find any official wikipedia policy on the matter, and to be honest I don't find too much fault with his skepticism and confusion. People try to use science to prove all kinds of wacky things, and sometimes Systems Science seems like it's trying to do that (although I believe it is in good faith, and might be very useful if it pans out). There's so many wackos trying to spout all kinds of pseudoscience on Wikipedia and I think that it's important to protect against that, and worse - the mixing of that with science. I think Fourdee is trying to do this as part of that fight, and I think even if it's really frustrating to you because of how it was done, it's trying to be for the common good. Please let me know what I can do to help Systems Science get proper treatment in this article, and in other related articles. Thanks for listening to this incredibly long rant :) P.S. I left a long rant on Fourdee's page about what I think about emergence, if you want an interesting read (and/or a quick laugh!) User_talk:Fourdee#Stupid_philosophical_ranting - JustinWick 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again, Fourdee launches Wikipedia Litigation against you without notitifying you

More than six hours after launching a User Conduct Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Psychohistorian against you, Fourdee has again not had the courtesy or sense of fairness to notify you. Hu 10:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)