User talk:Lukas19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

/Archive 1, /Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Lukas19, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Addhoc 12:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Caucasoid race

The recently filed mediation cabal case on the above article has been closed - the dispute has stopped. I hope you aren't bitter about me ignoring the case - it was done in the hope that the disputing editors stopped arguing, which you have. If the dispute flares up again, please do contact me - a more active style will have to be incorporated. Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

Hey Lukas, just letting you know that there are many who support our opinions and arguments on the English people and other ethnic group articles. Descent and resultant traits are obviously an integral part of ethnic identification despite the disagreements of users like Alun, LSLM and Globe who are clearly a vocal minority in these matters. Honestly, I sometimes wonder how some people are raised. Anyways, there clearly is an anti-ethnic, assimilatoinist agenda with some of these users often associated with extreme-leftist political viewpoints. I am very busy with school at the moment and life outside of Wikipedia but I will aid you when I can on some of these matters. Keep in mind not to rely too heavily on the limited Y-chromosome and MtDNA studies many of these users cite so often, since they only reflect only part of our genetic inheritance. Most of the studies in fact rely on maybe 4 or 5 different acutal collections of data that have been used and interpretd by different researchers in a clearly biased manner (eg. Spencer Wells). In any case, alot of the data from these studies actually disagrees with many of the strange interpretations of both the aformentioned users on here as well as some of the researchers themselves (and believe me, there is a large amount reports being mounted in response to Oppenheimer, Sykes, Wells, etc., due to come out later this year). The limited number of studies available are also not only from only a few small sections of our overall genetic inheritance, but they're also from specific, limited and varying samples in which we do not have full information on those tested (i.e. the type of people, their respective ancestries/origins/background, etc.) Anyways, keep at it, and lets keep the articles non-biased and prevent some of these users' nihilistic POV-pushing. Ciao, Epf 10:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] white people

Hi Lucas. My edits to white people were silly. I apologize. Christmasgirl

[edit] Re:LSLM

Though a controversial editor, LSLM is not a vandal, and the dispute resolution with him does not belong on AIV, as another administrator commented before. I am sure that people will start paying attention on AN/I pretty soon. I don't have much knowledge about the topics he edits, so there is not much more I can do at the moment. Academic Challenger 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_Comment

Have replied to you in place. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White People, edits

You deleted cited information from the US census I posted on the "white people" article in the subheading "United States".

The passages were The U.S. Census currently defines "white people" as "people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.[34] and In "The White Population 2000,"[34] white people are defined both geographically and by self identification.

- The term “White” refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who reported “White” or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.[34]

It was probably an honest mistake that you deleted this. Thank you Wood345 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i dont like the white and black people articles at all

I dont like that black and white people articles. i think its soo wrong to defy people into races like black and whites. like they are two different species. and i think the whole article is a big joke if im being honest. its full of "info" like about that black and wite almost having the same blood type..i mean HELLO its racist. --Matrix17 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White people

Oxford.com's definition of white is not very good. I think white people can be defined 3 ways: caucasoid race, light skin, and European ancestry. A person who meets all 3 criteria will be considered white by more people than a person who meets just 1 or 2 of the 3. Removeor

For example some people consider North Africans & other Arabs to be "dark whites". The U.S. census considers them white so it's hardly a fringe view. Forensic experts will classify them as white. But the man on the street will not consider them white so I agree there's more to defining white than just being caucasoid. There's also more than just being European. I know Italian people who do not consider themselves white. They are European, but not light skinned, so I agree that light skinned should be part of the definition. So all 3 criteria, caucasoid race, light skin, & European ancestry should be given equal weight when you decide who is white. Northern orientals are white in color but not in race or ancestry. Arabs are white in race but not in color or ancestry. Italians are more white than ether orientals or arabs because they pass 2/3 criteria: race and ancestry, but they fail the third criteria: skin color. Nordics are the most white because they pass all 3 criteria: They're caucasoid, light skinned, & European Removeor

In response to your comment on my talk page: After looking at editing history of white people, I found that I didn't mean to delete that specific sentence in the article. It got deleted because it is was right after this one "Europeans have paler skin (and hair) than any other group on Earth and the extreme of the paleness adaptation is found only in people who are native to the region within 600 miles of the Baltic and North seas." [1] It's very easy to make mistakes when editing that article, because there is so much back-and-forth edit warring, and people inserting dodgy factual claims and racist opinions. Spylab 11:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: My "mistake"

I won't comment on whether my action was a mistake, but I will tell you that both of you are bordering on violating the three-revert rule on Caucasian race. Cease further edit warring or you will be blocked. --Coredesat 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

He's right. The RfC isn't about him. All you two have been doing is provoking each other. --Coredesat 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White people

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/White people, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

We're going to mediation. Please sign on to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/White people.--Carwil 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Lukas. Could you please participate in the mediation? Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/White people.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] March 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Caucasian race. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. John Reaves (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Christian male

I also find that section problimatic. But, deleting it isn't the answer. Please consider helping to expand it. futurebird 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not write in my talk page again. Thx...Lukas19 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mustafa Hefny pic in article "white people"

In your Revision as of 16:38, 26 February 2007 edit, you state No consensus is needed to delete unsourced material The Hefny pic you deleted is sourced: see Black or white? Egyptian immigrant fights for black classification MacFarlane, Joan. CNN. July 16, 1997 Or just click on the picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wood345 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hi

Not bored with wikipedia; I think it is very interesting, important and useful. I'm just not able to strike a balance between time here and on other projects - the controversial pages really draw me in and consume a lot of time and energy. If this were less anarchistic I would spend more time on it, but as it is, anything we do will just be wiped out the next week by someone who doesn't want it said or shown, so editing requires constant vigilance. Also I get very angry with the LSLM and Margrave sorts and I think that anger spreads in my mind and life, and to be honest I have already paid the price for anger and even action on these topics a number of times over the past 15 years. Fourdee 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LSLM

Hi. I think I see what you mean when you say that he has a sockpuppet. They do similar things and have a "yelling" style. I think it is worth filing a checkuser claim. I may be able to do this since you will probably be blocked for 3RR. I believe that if it is proven he will not only be blocked for 3RR, but also receive other consequences for sockpuppetry. I'm going to go determine the proper CU code. Cheers. The Behnam 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I just took a look at that IP's contribs page. It is laughably obvious. The Behnam 21:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, he doesn't appear to have used it to violate 3RR. Can you perhaps point out abusive use? Might make this process easier. The Behnam 21:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hi Lukas, you have been reported for 3RR violation on White people, and I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please take the time to study our WP:3RR policy, and hopefully you'll come back to edit productively, with a better understanding of our rules. Many thanks, Crum375 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Crum beat me to it. You need a timeout. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whiteness

Hi Lukas. I think it would go a long way toward showing your willingness to edit cooperatively if you made the revert yourself. But do so in a way that's careful to preserve other people's changes, while removing your own (at least the controversial ones). Dont do a plain revert to an older version, because people have no doubt done work since. Explain what you are doing in the comment line so people dont just assume you're doing the same thing. From that point we can get on with addressing each of your points. Im big on including things, so Im not likely to rule things out on the basis of POV, but I am clear on characterizing sources: where does it come from?, is it accepted as scientific or not?, what interpretations does this research make?, etc.

Im sorry to hear you have been harassed such that youve changed usernames. Its clear that you want make contributions here, and I think you should feel more than welcome. But that means following the rules, the main ones being WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. Its really that simple. There are of course cases where people are expressing a POV which we want to counter, or that people are being rude and we want to be rude back. But doing so doesnt really work - even if you are correct on a point, your methods will cloud how people view you and your work. The best thing to do is explain yourself clearly, and listen to what others are saying. Understand that, for any subject, you are likely to come into contact with very smart, articulate, and learned people who on certain points may disagree with you. Remember Wikipedia is less a forum for people to express themselves as it is a place where people can learn stuff. -Stevertigo 01:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a suggestion, and I was not aware of "seven months" of your history there when I made it. With that out of the question, I suggest removing just the particularly controversial points you have made (if they haven't been already) and dealing with them on the talk page. I dont know what your defintion of "netural" is, but I am not going to recuse myself. -Stevertigo 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you could make a list of what you consider to be controversial points (ie: pic of African man) then we could get started. Do it in the talk page though. Regards, -Stevertigo 02:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silly mistake?

On White people you reverse the parentheses from the source about Neolithic Near Eastern whatever. Look at the source; Neolithic is in parentheses, the Near Eastern is not. I see no harm in adhering to that intended parentheses use in the source. Can you fix that? The Behnam 03:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the sentence with neolithic in paranthesis. "very important immigrants from the Near East between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago contribution to the European genetic pool". Now that's silly. Lukas19 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow! I didn't realize that was there. Can you restore the setup of the parentheses then? The Behnam 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of Aryan Race

I'm writing to complain about the changes you did to my section "Genetic considerations" in Aryan race. You basically deleted what I said, even though mostly well founded, and substituted it for your views. I don't know about were you stand politically, but I would prefer that you discuss with me any further changes to the article before you change it. Coming from an old democracy as Norway, I'm sure you'll see the advantages of this method.

Regarding your arguments: the populations of Scandinavia and Germany have indeed been proven to be highly mixed by recent data. I don't know your habilitations, but as a qualified professional of this general area (I'm a medical doctor), perhaps I can clarify this issue for you. R1b and R1a are very different haplogroups, despite descending from the same pre-historic populations. Geneticists calculate that they separated 30.000 years ago. R1a only appeared 10,000 years ago in what is today the east Ukraine and central asia (see Haplogroup R1a and carry any discussions regarding this fact there please, as is proper) and is not a modified version of R1b. When R1b carriers met R1a carriers in Germany they represented populations probably without major contact for 20.000 years. If this is not mixing, there is no such thing. Maybe you meant to say that scandinavian populations are not mixed since we are all a big human family and there are no races. I could agree. But if you mean to identify different groups, there is a very clear, 20.000 year long separation between R1b and R1a. 20.000 years is a long time in human history; r1b rich populations and r1a rich populations who met for instance in Norway had very different origins and histories. They were in effect different peoples, with diffent gene frequencies. If that is not a mixed people I don't know what is. If Norwegians today look homogeneous, it is only because they ar very thoroughly mixed after thousands of years of intermarriage. As for the Germans, they are one of the most mixed peoples in Europe, by any account. If you consider Russians (mostly R1a) at one extreme of Europe and Portuguese (mostly R1b) at another, Germany is were these groups mix. If Norwegian people (as said in your rather outdated document) are similar geneticaly to Germans, it is only first, because mDNA in all Europe is very similar, second because both Norway and Germany are both very mixed populations, being in the centre of Europe (that is from a west-east perspective relevant to land-moving invasions and population mixing). Invaders from the East and South would inevitably mix with west europeans (R1bs) in Germany. If you need explicit sources saying this scientifically proven fact, rest assure I will find them for you, for they exist. And if these accounts are unconfortable to you prepare yourself, with growing DNA research they will only be amplified. Salvadorjo 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Can you please respond to users in a block after their entire post? It makes it hard to follow when you break the posts like you did at White people. Thanks. The Behnam 07:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I'll read it through, and if I can spot anything I'll comment on it. Good luck! · AO Talk 09:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/u/k/User_talk%7ELukas19_c1c6.html"