User talk:Psychohistorian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia!!! 2 I had enough. you win 3 Paleoconservatism: Amount of Citation Requests 4 Edit summaries 5 AMA request 6 inquiry about 198.97.67.59 7 re: Irreducible complexity 8 Changes to Illegal Immigration 9 RE: Illegal immigration 10 RFC 11 3RR warning 12 Race-based articles 13 Prognathism 14 Mediation 15 3RR 16 White people article dispute 17 Read NPOV 18 Personal Attack 19 Mediation 20 3R 21 Civility 22 Poem 23 RfC 24 Deletion of paragraphs 25 Macroevolution/Speciation 26 Emergence 27 Thulean/Lukas19 28 Persistent Ad Hominem 29 Fourdee's Noticeboard charge (unnotified) 30 Emergence Frustration 31 Again, Fourdee launches Wikipedia Litigation against you without notitifying you 32 Continuation of Previous Discussion 33 Citations 34 Opinion? 35 Hello Veritas 36 It's a man's world 37 Thanks 38 ID 39 Evolution 40 your current debate about the term ID having been around a long time 41 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Psychohistorian 42 Immigration Template 43 New Template Section 44 3RR report 45 User notice: temporary 3RR block 46 Template 47 I'm off 48 Caucasoid race 49 Immigration 50 An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al.

[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 {{sources}} tag. I put additional {{sources}} tags in the rest of the sections where he had removed ^{[citation needed]} tags. He removed the {{sources}} 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)

[edit] Continuation of Previous Discussion

Psychohistorian: I have been out of pocket for a while and here is the remainder of my answer to your post. It is rather long and in advance I appogize for the length and thank you for taking the time to read it.

In my previous post I stated that I received my degree in 1984, but I received it in 1986. Got married in ' 84 when I was very young and very dumb. Graduated high school in 1981. I worked full-time through undergrad as a research asst in the Depts of Sociology (for a criminology prof) and Archeology/Anthropology (for a Japanese studies prof) and going to sch 1/2 to 3/4 time ea sem. + summers. Upon graduation I worked for an international oil & gas co that was based in London and had its North American HQ in Texas. I enjoyed my job but wanted something more and I enrolled in law school after a few years, once again working full-time while going to school 1/2 to 3/4 time ea sem. During law sch I worked as a law clerk (commonly refered to as a baby lawyer) with the now defunct Death Row Legal Defense Fund out of Houston and it's founder in her private practice which was split between crim defense and personal injury cases. She took on a lot of really high profile cases, had bloody cow heads put on her front lawn, dead chickens on her car windsheild, received death threats, and always suspected that her phones were tapped by the men in black. She is now a federal judge. It was an exciting time for me, but I had difficulty with the amorality which is pervasive in the legal system and in legal education (it has to start somewhere and believe me, it's taught in law school). So when I decided that I wanted to go to heaven, that I didn't care if I ever saw my face on the back of a phone book, that life wasn't all about winning and the pursuit of deep pockets, I quit law school after earning two full years credit. Having several lawyers in my family and after seeing how their lives have evolved, I have never regreted leaving law. After that, I worked for 7 years in healthcare administration at a major teaching hospital. Towards the end of that career, I got some kind of wild hair up my arse and decided I would get my masters in teaching and started going back to school 1/2 time. It was probably a pre mid-life crisis as I was making -really good- $, was good at my job, and received terrific evaluations and raises, although I didn't really like what I was doing much and I thought I could "give back more" by helping kids. I completed my student teaching and am temporarily certified to teach in Texas with full certification pending completion of my masters degree. Between work and school I have managed to attend a few wild parties, get married, attend a few wild parties, move back to San Antonio which my husband and I both consider home, raise a few kids, play co-ed league softball (which entailed attending a few mandatory wild victory parties), do volunteer work with hard core criminal juveniles on probation, do the soccer mom thing, do the golf mom thing (which is 100 times more intense than the soccer mom thing), volunteer with drug-addicted kids (and advised them of the ills of wild partying), volunteer with parents who were in danger of loosing their kids to Child Protective Services (and preached to them to stay away from wild parties), contributed to public art by sharing my skills as a mosaicist on several murals with a team of other artists (which entailed attending a few wild mural dedication parties), and stay married to the same guy for 22 years - all in that order. No seriously, only a few parties were truly -wild-, the others were just good clean fun. I have also fulfilled my obligations to my husband's and my own extended families by attending funerals, birthdays, weddings, all holidays, baptisms, family reunions, etc., by helping out in caring for sick, elderly and dying family members, and by taking in family members at various times who were trying to get back on their feet after a personal crisis. On top of all this, somehow I have always managed to find time to get my daily fixes for my two addictions: playing video games and reading (not school related). I literally can not sleep until I have done those two things, that's why I call them my addictions. So that's my story from the day I graduated high school (also the day I left home) until the present - a Condensed Readers Digest version of the last 25 years. On paper it seems busy but all in all I lead an ordinary life with my own share of crises and good times. If you do not want to tell me your story that's OK, I am not expecting reciprocation.

Meandering back to our previous discussion:

"This is a good opportunity to ask - what is your academic orientation? I know you aren't trained in anthropology, sociology, political science, history, or economics (as anyone with a decent education at, at least, the junior level of college in these fields would be more than up to speed on dialectical material and circumscription theory - these are really basic things"

This is the second time you have tried to pigeon-hole me and have taken an "I am superior and I know better attitude" with me. The first time was when you assumed I was from a foreign country and then went on about how things were done in the United States as though I was ignorant and clueless. Also, I have run across a dialogue between you and another user in which you wrongly assumed that he did not have a high school diploma and insinuated that he was not an intellectual because he did not have an advanced degree. Some of the most intellectual (and wisest) people I have met have had nothing more than a high school education. They have come from all races and all ages. For one reason or another, whether it be chronic economic hardship, having to take care of sick parents or spouses, disability, or some other circumstance, some people just never have the opportunity to receive a formal education at the higher levels. This does not mean that they are stupid, or not well read, nor that they do not self-educate. In my various careers I have met several entrepreneurs who have turned their skills into multi million dollar businesses. Two of those people have been high school drop outs and never went back to school, not even to get a GED. They are both brilliant men and could easily teach at a Business School at the university level if they had degrees. Two other men I have met only received high school diplomas and while wealthy beyond imagination, they did not do as well as those who were drop outs. Go figure. There are numerous cases of people who have gone this route to fame and fortune. Again, these people are not ignorant because in your words they have not had "a decent education" or have not studied "really basic" things. You seem to need to fit large round pigeons into tiny square holes. My choice of sizes and shapes are symbolic. Since you're so well educated I'm sure you can figure it out. And BTW, your initial assumptions have been wrong in the three cases I've mentioned above. So, now that I've told you all there is to know about me (although you can find even more detail on my user page) and you don't have to make any more assumptions, you are free to pigeon hole away.

"...tells us more than I think you've intended."

Your trend at assuming things about people because of the ways you are categorizing them, coupled with your sense of superiority is consistent with the way in which you want to catetorize "illegal aliens". This tells us more than I think -you've- intended. But I'm going to let that slide because I also used to pigeon hole people, and I used to look down on people who did not have advanced degrees. Life experience changed those perceptions and behaviors.

"I'm well aware of the harm - a move towards further global economic disparity and hardening of the global economic caste system brought about as a result of illegal immigration. The thing is, I don't think that you are aware of that harm."

Yes I am also aware of that harm, and of the potential social, policical, and economic results on a global level. I have kids for jacks sake, believe me, I do not want to see these potential outcomes materialize. My 15 year old is studying world geography in depth for the first time. On his own, without input from me or his teacher, he came to the conclusion that "America is moving towards becoming one of those Third World countries". When I asked him when he thought this would happen he predicted "within the next 100 years" and stated that "America will never be one of those countries with one of the highest standards of living in the world." Even my 15 year old has a sense of what is happening to our country. Because I already know your position and I know which way you lean, I tend not to make arguments which lead to the same points you are making. That doesn't mean that do not see the whole picture. I also believe that -you- do not see the whole picture. Perhaps you are making one point without acknowledging the existance of the flip side because you believe that I am oriented a certain way. (I'm not sure that made sense. Oh well.) Also, not everything can be blamed on "illegial aliens". You obviously know about global economics so I'm sure you also realize that the current (and future) economic state of the US has a lot to do with a myriad of other things such as the strength of other economic systems like the Euro, and with our own current trend of raising our national debt so high that only an astrophysisist will be able to comprehend the magnitude of the problem if our spending does not stop soon. I pointed these things out to my son, along with the illegal immigration problem, when we were talking about America's future. All of these things can be fixed and/or manipulated.

"Immigrant" and "illegal alien" are official categories with well defined meaning used by the US government. As for talking about what the terms mean outside of the US government, you are free to cite experts." - and - "We aren't talking about immigrating to other countries. Look at the title of the article in dispute. It specifically restricts itself to the United States."

Where, besides the supposed "official glossary", that I have already pointed out probably comes from a pilot project field manual, and on web pages is the term "illegal alien" used by the US government? (Which reminds me that I need to mail out my RFPI.) Web pages do not constitute official policy nor law, so please don't say "web pages" or I'll have to SOL (scream out loud). OK, you have asked me to cite experts outside the US regarding terms and then proceed to point out that we aren't talking about immigrating to other countries. Do you want to talk about terms used outside the US and then not talk about other countries? Please clarify, I'm confused.

"Unless they were brought into the US against their will and forced to remain in the US against their will, I know that their intentions include violating US law."

Breaking the emmigration laws of their own countries, and the immigration laws of ours is just one peice of a very large puzzle and needs to be viewed as part of the whole pictue. In this instance, the picture is intentions. Sometimes you can not even figure out what an individual puzzle peice is until it is seen as a part of the whole picture (figuratively speaking). My point is that the "intent" of violating emmigration and immigration laws may very well just be a result of / a natural consequence of other, more desperate intentions, and other circumstances which are way beyond any individual's control.

"I will try to get it into my reading list "

Thank you.  :)

"I was hoping to jump quickly into world systems theory rather than cover remedial ground."

As you know, strong buildings rest on good foundations. Basic building blocks, anchor blocks ("remedial ground") must be discussed and covered in order to come to a final agreement or understanding. If we can not agree in the end, then at least we know that its because we have each chosen to use different colored or different sized anchor blocks (again figuratively speaking). Personally, it would help me to know that we have the same knowledge base, and are up to speed on the same basic things. I'm sure that this is irritating to you, but it is essential to me for further discussion.

I would like to make an observation. First, have you heard of a monocular? It's similar to binoculars, but with only one sight for one eye. It seems that you have the tendancy to view the world through a monocular instead of through binoculars. It's like shooting a gun, it may appear to the inexperienced as though one can shoot better with one eye shut, but opening both eyes actually improves aim and accuracy. It seems to me that because you only argue one side (monocular vision) without acknowledging the existance of the other (binocular vision) that you are very narrowly focused on achieving some unstated goal rather than engaging in meaningful debate. This tendancy is very irritating and frustrating to me. If it is the case that you are focused on achieving some unstated goal, then nothing I say really matters and continuing this dialogue will be for naught. Now I have a question: Is this the way I seem to you? If so, we both need to make an effort not to sound so one sided. Doing so seems to annoy the heck out of both of us.

Next Steps - I believe we have gotten way off topic and I'd like to get refocused. What do you propose as the next step in a fruitful discussion of the article? Chicaneo 16:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

December 18, 2006, Monday

"Until very recently, the editors working on that article have been overwhelmingly pro-illegal immigration."

Yes, I can see that and I think I mentioned that in an earlier post.

"Official web sites have official content (or, at least, they should)."

My experience in working for and with large bureaucracies is that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. So if something makes sense, is practical, saves money, makes things easier, is obvious even to a moron, or requires a little bit of effort, then that is what will NOT be done. As far as content on web sites, my experience is that in privately owned or smaller organizations the website is considered to be the new "front door" and is more closely monitored by execs. In government agencies, my experience is that the website is seen as the "screen door" and is not particularly scrutinized by higher level officials because the "front door" is usually the U.S. Postal Service and the "side door" is the telephone, that is, if you get your hands on the right phone number. Also large bureaucracies tend to rely on official publications to espouse official policy. This is why I have decided to send out that RFPI, which reminds me I still have not mailed it.

I said: "Breaking the emmigration laws of their own countries, and the immigration laws of ours is just one peice of a very large puzzle" & you responded: "You're dancing around the issue, I think. The issue is whether they intended to break US law. If I break into a pharmacy to get much needed medicine and I do so knowing what I'm doing and being under my own control, then I've intentionally broken the law."

I really had to think about that one because it does appear as if I am dancing around the issue. Your example about the medicine is appropriate, but if put into the right context, and analyzed in conjunction with all the extenuating circumstances, is it appropriate to call the person who stole the medicine a thief, a hero, a looter, or a finder (making reference to Katrina/New Orleans)? Whether we like it or not, we must admit first and foremost that illegal immigrants are victims. It is because they are victimized by their own society that they turn to illegally emigrating/immigrating, often at great personal risk, to get out of their current situations. When they come to the US they are further demonized for various reasons such as being unskilled laborers, uneducated, and their inability to assimilate quickly etc. and I'm sure you are aware of other reasons. So, is it more appropriate to further demonize them by using negative labeling, or is it more appropriate to use a neutral label (or in your opinion a PC label) while also pointing out the negative impact that their behavior has on their own society and on ours as well as by educating others about cause, effect, prevention and potential solutions? Since we are working on an encyplopedic article we do have the ability to be both factual about cause & effect as well as neutral about lables. Remember that lables encite emotions in people. When people become emotional they can not think or behave rationally, much less digest facts and solve problems. This is why I put forth that propoganda argument in an earlier post. I'm not dizzy yet & I don't think I'm wearing taps, but I'll check my shoes. ;)

"I do not want to dress up a pig and call it a girl scout."

LOL, LOL. That reminds me of a photo my mother has of me as a Brownie sitting on Santa's lap. I was really chubby because I only grew vertically that year and in this photo the buttons on my two sizes too small uniform are about to pop and you can see rolls of fat through the wide open spaces between the buttons. So I think that a pig in a girl scout uniform could be pretty cute actually, especially if you were to make it wear the beanie.

Regarding Karl, Emile, and Karl: When I was in undergrad I was a mile to the left of flaming liberals who were far too conservative for me. I was pro goverment funding of abortions, anti male, anti Republican, pro gun control, I listened to Boy George, thought that Michael Jackson was one cool dude (but that was before the first nose job so it's OK), Jesse Jackson made perfect sense (except that "Hymie" comment was really uncool) - I was a Rainbow Coalition wannabe but I supported another candidate so I couldn't be, I believed in the "goodness" of a two party system, and I was an active and extremely vocal member of the Young Democrats on a generally conservative campus attended mostly by wealthy Anglos from Dallas. I could go into greater detail but I'm about to vomit and really don't want to make you sick either. That was 20 years ago and since then I have become "enlightened", I think. Marx's "views" were pushed aside because I believed in the superiority of capitalism, the righteousness of laissze faire, and in "The American Way". This seems odd now given that Marx probably was a better fit for my political orientation at the time. But I was vehemently against anything vaguely socialist or communist. At the time "socialist" was generally considered to be a bad word with all sorts of negative connotations and communists were refered to "pinko commies" of just "commies". You must realize during this time waging the Cold War was at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy and the amount of propoganda put out by our government at that time was insane. Like a lot of people, I was caught up in that propoganda. Although I do remember a lot of Marx's theory on materialism, class, and labor, because it made a lot of sense, I'm drawing a blank at the term "dialectical materialism". I was unwilling to listen to or adopt Marx's "views" because of my patriotism and belief that democracy could not survive if it incorporated any other viewpoints that appeared to be "socialist" or "commie". At the time I thought I was an independant thinker, but I was not. I was just a radical leftist caught up in radical leftist groupthink and in government and anti socialist/commie propoganda. I really do need to make an effort to go back and refresh my memory. I'm sure that would do the trick and I might even discover that I'm more closely aligned with Marx than I ever thought I'd be. So who the hell are Durkheim and Popper? Just kidding. So perhaps now you can see why I am also so strongly against the use of the term "illegal alien" It is because I have first hand experience as to how the use of negative terms can become general ideals and how they can be used as weapons against the non-thinking masses to further the agendas of non-thinking people in power and by those who are caught up in groupthink against one idea or another. Also, I am aware, because of first hand experience, as to how negative labeling can encite emotions, and because of these emotions, public opinion can be swayed, and can also make or break public/national policy. When policy is based on emotions, rational problem solving has not taken place, wars are caused, people die, and the masses remain ignorant. Another example is the current war with Iraq. How in the hell our govt, full of intelligent people, thought that they could win this war is extremely puzzling to me. They incited the public with the "what color is our safety level today" scheme, the phrase "war on terrorism", and by playing to the public's fears post 911. As a result, the general population, and their political representatives, were in favor of expanding the war in Afganistan into Iraq. If one were only to take a very shallow look at the political history of that region, one would discover that other great civilizations have tried to "convert" the political and religious fabric of these nations for milleniums and have failed. This was no doubt suprising to the "superior" countries given the apparent inferiority of middle eastern technology and their simplistic lifestyles. But nonetheless these peoples have consistently ousted their invaders and potential "conquorers". How on earth the US and its people thought that we could be "the ones" to finally succeed is absolutely mind boggling. The people of these nations are strong willed, proud, and persistant. They may have limited resources, but time, patience, and persistance will always be victorious against those who seek to change others against their will. If it wasn't for the negative labeling and plays to fear, perahps other solutions besides (this failure of) a war could have been considered and adopted. But because negative words became reality (social construction of reality theory) and no one was thinking ... they were knee-jerk reacting. I see this same pattern with the "illegal alien" labeling as I saw during the Cold War era and that I am seeing now with Iraq. I tried to convey my ideas about propoganda in an earlier post, but because we were not discussing openly, and were also knee-jerk reacting, I was unable, perhps unwilling, to go into detail.

About the witch-hunt, I mean RfC, hopefully nothing serious will become of it. Some of my comments may have appeared harsh, but I tried to balance them with the positive things I have observed. I think that it's important to weigh in everything, and not just look at one side then go full speed from there as if in vendetta mode. Some people can't do that and I believe it's because they let their emotions interfere. Again, I have not taken anything personally, otherwise I wouldn't still be dialoguing with you. I was a real hard-ass back in the day and was one of those difficult people that others would read books about if they really had to deal with me. I used to read those books for hints on the other person's tacticts just to stay one step ahead. No seriously, I was a really mean and difficult person. That's probably why I was attracted to law. One of my professors and mentors would ask me from time to time why I looked so pissed off during lecture that day. I would say "I'm not angry, I just look that way." It was the truth - I wasn't angry, but my meanness had consumed me and I really didn't know any other way to be. Thinking about it, I would have probably been kicked off Wikipedia "speedily" if it was around when I was younger because I had no self restraint whatsoever. Everyone was a moron to me, except me. (This actually tells you a lot about my husband, because we got married right in the middle of my sophmore and junior years. He's tough as nails and very logical and was the only person, besides my mentors, who was ever able to put me back in my place. Not even my parents could do that. I used to call him "a biker without a bike" until he purchased a Harley Sportster a few years ago.) But life has a way of changing people and it was not unti a co-worker of mine had enough courage to confront me that I was able to see how my words and behaviors negatively impacted people, emotions, and outcomes. I'm not like that anymore, except when I am really pissed off at my kids I do slip back into old habits. Chicaneo 15:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

"If, on the other hand, we are discussing things without intending for it to have any bearing on Wikipedia, then I'll admit that you have a point." - - Yes, that is what I am saying. However I'll also point out that that WP also puts less bearing on internet sites (I'm not referring to pulling valid materials off the net) than on those of more academic orientation.

Me: "is it appropriate to call the person who stole the medicine a thief, a hero, a looter, or a finder" You: "Don't know. Don't care. All those words are attempts to reframe the discussion to be built on emotion rather than reason." - - That is true, but isn't the use of the word "alien" also built on emotion? This brings to mind the words of your linguist friend regarding POV.

"We must admit that -some- illegal immigrants are victims - just like some percentage of any other group are victims. When discusing social dynamics on the macroscale, we must be careful not to stereotype." - - Yes, you are correct, but I also believe that characterizing all illegal immigrants as "aliens" is also stereotyping in the other direction because it does not recognize that "some" of them -are- victims. I wonder if there is another word besides "aliens" which would satisfy both of us? Which will recognize the illegality of what they are doing but also recognizes that they are immigrants? I'll have to think about that. ...... Hey! How about putting the word illegal in front of the word immigrant? Now that's novel thought. ;) (OK, you have the right to call me a smart ass) But serioiusly, I'll give it some thought.

"The major dispute between you and I regards our different views as to how to get them to stop being victims. I believe that illegal immigration to the US simply perpetuates the victimization. You do not." - - I do not recall talking specifically about the perpetuation of victimization or how to stop it, but I suppose you could assume my views are one way because of my arguments about other things. Please do not assume anything about me. I'll lay it all out on the table right now: I am anti illegal immigration. Repeat - anti. I recognize the role that emmigrating countries have played in encouraging and perpetuating illegal immigration. I also recognize the role that the US, both govt and private citizens, have played in encouraging and perpetuating illegal immigration (this is a biggie for me and really pisses me off). I recognize that both emmigrating countries and the US are in denial and have refused to do anything about taking responsibility for their roles for at least a century let alone try to solve the problem in any constructive way without thinking through all possible consequences (eg, Vicente Fox urged the US to continue to allow illegal immigration and touted its benefits and the US response: I've got it! Let's put up a fence! And we'll let cameras do the monitoring! We don't know who will do the enforcing, because we aren't willing to commit more funds to enforcement, but as long as we have National Guard troops sitting at the border doing nothing and with the authority to do only nothing then I'm sure that we have set up ample deterrant for those who combination walk/swim across. Sush, don't talk about those who come across in vehicles, or those who enter packed in 18-wheeler trailers, or the network of "safe houses" set up Underground Railroad style scattered throughout the states along the US border with Mexico, or the women who are tricked into sex trafficing and slavery with promises of citizenship, a better life and money, because mentioning these things will bring attention to the fact that the issue is more complex that we want the masses to believe and also that we haven't a clue as to how to solve the problem. And let's not provide any real sanctions against those who hire illegals because that might piss off the wealthy and the small business owners who believe they "need" cheap labor (Republican base) and the other pro illegal immigrant voters who believe they are "defenders of human rights" (Democrat base) because if we make waves we might not get re-elected, and we might also piss off the swing Hispanic voter who has been historically Democrat, but is slowly gaining numbers in the Republican party. Or maybe we could grant amnesty?? ... no that would piss off those who are anti illegal immigrant and we still might not get re-elected. Oh, and lets leave the Canadian border alone, if no one's complaining about it, then it ain't broke. - What a bunch of maroons!), I recognize that the perpetuation of victimization of illegal immigrants will only end whien illegal immigration stops (that's a no brainer). But I also do not want my anti illegal immigration views to get in the way of editing what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedic article. I believe that in order to educate others they must be listening. Those who are pro-illegal immigration will not listen if they start out pissed off by negative labels. They will be blinded to the facts and will remain ignorant. This is another underlying reason behind my push for the term "illegal immigration" in the WP article.

Me: "Remember that labels encite emotions in people." You: "Exactly why I do not want to see these people be called "immigrants". It clouds the issues. They are "aliens"." - - Yes, but see above argument, what you call them in private is your own business, what we call them publically also clouds the ability for non-thinkers to think and thus they remain ignorant. I strongly urge you to consider that those people who are anti illegal immigration do not need to be educated very much further and thus using the term "alien" is preaching to the choir. Use of the term "immigrant" will placate those who are pro-illegal alien and will allow them listen to attempts to educate them instead of pissing them off from the get go and then they will not listen to anything. When the term "alien" is used, those who are pro-illegal immigration will also question the validity of the facts of the article because their thinking is clouded by their emotional response to the word "alien". Think about it, please.

"So, what I learned is that, just as the use of negative terms to describe neutral things creates problems, the use of positive terms to describe neutral things (or even, as was my experience, downright evil things) creates problems as well." - - I get your point.

"Its up to us to think without all the emotional baggage and to call a thing what it is. So, my stance is to call a rose "a rose" and fertilizer "fertilizer". - - I understand. But we must also help others to think without their own emotional baggage and sometimes that means that in order to deliver the facts we must first speak in terms people can understand and accept. For example: One of the ways European culture infiltrated the existing Indian cultures of the Americas so quickly was by delivering the message of religion in a way which was not too far different from their own worship of multiple dieties, eg: the Roman Catholic communion of Saints, the glorification of the Virgen de Guadalupe (Mary), the use of alters, sacrifice (although non human), and complex rituals in worship. Because religion was delivered in a manner that the Indians could understand and relate, mass conversion was relatively easy. I know this is simplified and I'm not sure how useful an example it is but it is the only one I could think of.

I understand all your arguments and I agree with them. It is also helpful to know why you are making these arguments and I respect your viewpoints. I am trying to accomplish a goal of educating others whose minds are made up without knowing the true facts. Pissing them off only alienates them - no pun intended. Chicaneo 15:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

'Wednesday - Dec 20, 2006

"I'm not clear on what your point is here. Are you arguing that a government site is less of a reliable source than some non-government site? That's painting with too broad a brush. What we can do is put out an RfC to see if the consensus agrees that a government site is a reliable source." - - What I was refering to was Wikipedia:Reliable Sources TOC#5 Using online and self-published sources. But I went back and read it again just now, and I'm not quite sure it can be stretched far enough to include a government web site. Wishful thinking I guess.

"Victim" and "alien" are not mutually exclusive terms." -- Did you mean inclusive? If not then please expand, I'm not getting it.

"I know you were just joking here." - - Aaah, so you -do- have a sense of humor. I was beginning to wonder about you. I'm -not- joking.

"They are not immigrants." - - You keep saying that, I keep disagreeing. The title of the article we are editing is "illegal immigration ....." not "illegal aliens ......". Please tell me why you think they are -not- immigrants so that I can understand where you are comming from.

"You forgot about the creation, maintaining, and further bullwarking of a caste system as a result of illegal immigration - such a caste system only making it easier to victimize both the people immigrating to this country as well as the poor already in this country." - - Alright then, I recognize that the perpetuation of illegal immigration results in .... blah.......caste system... blah blah......victimization of the US poor as well as illegal "aliens".

"I think its hubris to push for a terminology which mollifies people we don't agree with. I do not accept that I and those like me are better than others (that we are the only ones who can transcend labels and think about issues)." - - I'm not trying to mollify them, but it does appear that way. I am simply trying to get them to a point where they will stop and listen. Hubris? Are you calling me names? Personally attacking me maybe?? I just might have to make an RfC about this ... :) (I hope you know I'm kidding you.)

"beware those who seek to withhold information from you, for in their hearts they think themselves your masters." ... I've seen, first hand, what happens when people take the attitude that they need to spoon feed others (through giving them no more information than they think they can handle). Its ultimately destructive." - - All interesting, if you are willing to do it over the net, I would enjoy hearing an example of your experience. Chicaneo 12:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dec 20 - 11:55 CST

"Because, in order to be an immigrant, they have to follow immigration law...." - - Thanks for finally explaining that. I don't agree, but I'm releived to know your reasoning, I was beginning to wonder about you, again. If you need or want me to explain why I don't agree, I will do so, but I'm sure you've heard all possible arguments before and I don't want to waste our time. I'm glad you pointed out that none of those sources use the term "illegal immigrant", and I would also like to point out that none of those sources use the term "illegal alien" except for that one source on the USCIS website which I maintain is not "official" terminology but that of a field manual in a pilot project. I will either be proven correct or incorect once my RFPI is answered, if it is not "lost in the mail" first. If I'm wrong about all of this then I have obviously missed something that is looking me right in the face. If so, point it out, I seriously want to know what I've missed.

"I really wish you'd give this fact more respect and more awareness, considering how catastrophic a caste system would be." - - Look. I am a member of a -minority- group in the US. A minority group that has been experiencing racism, discrimination and second class citizen status since long before the Spanish American war. This is documented and if you don't believe me I will be happy to point you to academic sources. Bigotry, discrimination and rude treatment because of my ethnicity are things I have experienced first hand ALL MY LIFE, including as recently as last Saturday. I am also a female. I live, breathe and will die as a female. I went to a wedding a few months ago where the bride was refered to as "the lesser vessel" from the pulpit and the groom was encouraged to "understand that [his] new wife was the lesser person in this union". He was also ecouraged to "be patient with her" because of this. I have witnessed that my friends who have married outside their social class and/or ethnic background have never been fully accepted by their spouse's families no matter whether they have married up or down. I live in South Texas where Colonial Mexico's residual influence is great and the caste system was widely practiced here in Colonial times. I have observed Black, Anglo, and Mexican American people demonstrate typical caste-like behaviors. (I'm going to get on my soapbox here, so please forgive me.) Don't talk to -me- about a frikin -potential- caste system. That is a fiction. Whether you care to recognize it or not, there is already a caste system here in the US. No I am not talking about social class as defined by socioeconomic status. I am not talking about racism and bigotry alone. I am not talking about sexism. Do not even dare to tell me that we have a -class- system because what we have here is not a true class system if you really want to get purist about it. Don't tell me that what we have here is not inherited so it can not be a caste system because it is actually a custom, a practice, of passing down behaviors and ideals from one generation to the next. I really don't care if you want to call that heridatary or not. Why are there so many laws dealing with equality for races, sexes, ages, and disabilities? Caste. Why was there once a great demand for affirmative action? Caste. Mind you, the US caste system may not be as blatantly evident as that of some foreign caste systems, but it is here nonetheless, alive and well in the grand ole US of A in 2006. And you want to talk to -me- about respect, awareness and the catastrohy of of a caste system? Oh please (eyes rolling, nasty look on face). :( I'm done. Sorry, but you hit a button.

"By changing the message? What then will they be listening to?" - - I'm not changing the message, only one word. A word that I believe to be inflamatory and much too negative for all the reasons I have stated before, particularly the propoganda issue. I know that you don't agree so I'm not going to continue to beat a dead horse (the issue, not you).

"Considering discussing my personal life over wikipedia, no... during the middle of a witch-hunt." - - I completely understand, that's why I gave you an out. Chicaneo 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wed, Dec 20, 2:48p CST

"but a caste system implies that one group is socially priviledged compared to the other group": Hilton, Mellon, Kennedy. Where I live, the socialite debutantes spend upwards of $30k on one dress - the one they wear in the two Fiesta parades we have here in April each year. Some of the dresses are embedded with Austrian crystals, saphires, rubies and other precious gems, so $30k is a minimum. And did I mention the price of the tiara? Only Anglos participate in the deb affairs because to be "in" the group one must be invited. The members of the group are old families and old money. Once every 8 years or so there will be a Hispanic deb, and there has never been an African-American deb that I know of, but I may have missed that one while I was away at school. The debs and their families are required to attend many banquets, a coornation, private parties, Fiesta week activities with King Antonio etc, etc., Debs are required to have a wardrobe of at least 30 dresses, and I don't mean little league dresses from Macy's. The reason I know all this is because while I was in healthcare I mentored the one Hispanic deb from the one group who "sponsors" a Hispanic youth each year to participate in Fiesta activites. (Plus it's in the paper each year.) This Hispanic girl is not considered "part of the group" but she is included as a courtesy to her sponsors, an influential local Hispanic advocacy group. Fundraisers are held each year in the Mexican American community to help this girl with outfits, transportation, a tiara etc. There is even a museum here which permanently displays the extravagant dresses and honors the excesses of the deb/Fiesta Week tradition. (eyeroll) So please don't talk to me about there -not- being a class of socially privileged. (another eyeroll) I beg to differ. Also, I have seen, first hand, the class of underprivileged here, in California, in Oklahoma, and in the DC area. I have witnessed generational poverty.

"Rape of women is considered a horrible thing not worthy of joking about.": I've heard plenty of jokes and comments that indicate otherwise. One of our own gubnatorial candidates told his female oponent who was losing at the time to "Lay back and enjoy it." (Hey, this -is- Texas.) The lady won (not by a landslide) and went on to tell George Bush Sr. that he was "born with a silver foot" in his mouth at a Democratic Party National Convention. (Hey, this -is- Texas).

"Physical health": Historically, women's health and life expectancy has always been higher accross all ethnicities. No big deal.

"Genital mutilation": Ancient history (literally), not our country or focus anyway.

"Laws and Government": All products of 20th century efforts to eliminate the caste system. Prior to that there were plenty of men's clubs exclusively for men, like the US Supreme Court. There was also banning of women from voting, playing golf etc. All academic studies in universities involved the study of men in a male dominated society. Womens studies took place only at women's universities and core courses included "finishing".

"Economics": No way. You got that info from the Census Bureau? I'll have to check that out for myself. Women get custody more often? I don't know about that. I know so many single dads whose wives/live-ins have abandonded their families that it's nauseating. They are honorable men who I admire very much. Maybe it's because men who get "custody" of their children this way don't involve the courts and so and the "official" divorce/custody info is probably skewed. But I'd guess it's unofficially 50/50.

When I responded to your mention of a caste system, I was using the example of that dickweed claiming that women are the lesser vessel as an example, and yes it is an example, of larger, instutionalized, objectively verifiable, systemic discrimination. Just contact any of those women's organizations and ask them - or look on their websites if you need to know right away.

"Again, let's say what we mean and mean what we say." - - That's what I'm trying to do! Jeeeze how passionate to I have to get? I don't need to organize a coast-to-coast walk out do I?  :) 70.120.70.30 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC) aka Chicaneo 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wed, 20th, 6:18p CST

"You are using the term "class" interchangeably with "caste" and discussing sexism as an example. We aren't communicating." & "Regarding terminology, I am using the term "caste system" in a very specific way. It means a system of economic disparity, like a class system, but one with no social mobility." & "Anthropology ... Sociology" - - Yes, I get it. You are using a very strict definition of the term and I am using POV, original research, and anecdotal information to argue that there is a caste system in the US (specifically an ASCS - American-Style Caste System - my original term), albiet one where social mobility is possible, but extemely difficult, so it doesn't fit the definition you are using. Like I said before, you hit a button. I haven't thought it through well enough to make it an official theory, but it's getting there. Thanks for the feedback though - I'll need it for my book. BTW, do you know any publicists?

"Besides, why do you think, in our society, FGM has gotten so much more attention than MGM (and I wasn't discussing just circumcision, I was discussing something far more heinous than that)." - - I know you were. It's not discussed because those things simply aren't done to -men- in our society. To do them and to talk about such a henious thing is well...unspeakable (literally). It's an avoidance defense mechanism whereby members of our society will avoid discussing an issue because if it's discussed then it will have to be dealt with and to do so in this case will cause much embarassment and emasculation in our puritanical and male oriented society. Women, on the other hand are more open about their private parts - no pun intended- and are already "low man on the totem pole" so who cares if their privates are discussed openly? How many men do you know that will publically say they defending another man's penis? But women, will openly discuss FGM and even lend their voices and faces to TV for documentaries and for prime afternoon time on Oprah Winfrey. How many men do you know that will sit (or jump) on Oprah's couch and declare it a man's right or a human right to retain a whole member and then proceed to parade a slew of men with disfigured sex organs to discuss their experiences before an audience made up of primarialy women? I know I joke around alot, but I am really -not- making light of this subject. If sincere efforts (and I don't mean Oprah) have been attempted to make the seriousness of this issue well known, I am not aware of them and I suppose I should be. And women really do tend to self-advocate better than men.

I don't know how, but you have managed to get me off on a tangent. This is all your fault and I think I'll have to file an RfC for disruption of the Wikipedia process.  :) Now where were we? Oh yes, illegal immigration to the US. See there, you can't get a male and a female together without genitalia being involved somehow. Chicaneo 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thursday

Thank you for the “refresher”, I appreciate it very much. I do remember studying this and I also remember tying this specifically, in my mind, to minority and feminist issues at the time. Remember, I used to be anti-male. I can’t remember though if “investments” included education, and entrepreneurial efforts as well. I believe that we can agree that these concepts are basic building block from which we can further our discussions. Please proceed to circumscription theory. I have addressed your other comments separately. Chicaneo 13:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Please use Harvard citations in the Emergence article. Even Fourdee is! It really is the best Wikipedia system. Corning is already in the References section so all you need do is write {{Harv|Corning|2002}} anytime you want to cite that paper. Thanks. Hu 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah they are really cool. Thanks for all of your help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustinWick (talk • contribs) 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Opinion?

I have just read The Arab Mind (a great book, used by the U.S. government) and put up a stub about it. I wanted to place a link in Arab "See also" about this being a cultural psychology book, but two editors objected. An answer to their objections that the book is just one viewpoint (one also couldn't stand the author being a Hungarian Jew who lived in Israel) would be to put up an article on Arab cultural psychology reviewing a number of theories. I wrote to the American University of Beirut and they were intrigued, but felt that (1) the subject area was too broad and didn't have enough research done in it, and (2) any such article would be heavily politicized. Comments? Advice? Simesa 05:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean Comments that way. This looks like it would be an exciting article, but I don't feel qualified to write it (I could defend it once written, but really for this vital topic someone with some solid training should put up the article). I was hoping you could give some suggestions as to how to proceed in finding someone. It wou;d mean a lot of work on their part, but I'd help. Thanks for looking at this at all, Simesa 15:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Veritas

May you want to comment of Fourdee. I reported him. Veritas et Severitas 23:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's a man's world

You have brought up some good points and have made some good observations about our society which I will address here later today or tomorrow. These arguments do not however, provide proof that the US is -not- a male-oriented society but are simply examples of male issues in a male-oriented society. I will explain this from a sociological/psychosocial perspective in my answer but right now my kids are home on Christmas break so my time is not my own. BTW, you really should know that I am pro men's rights as well as pro minority, women's, disabaled, elderly, and children's rights. I am not an animal's rights activist per se but I do recognize the negative ecological effects that man's treatment of wildlife has on our planet. Also, when I had my son, I realized the existence of the things you are pointing out and more. Chicaneo 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday afternoon:

Who provides proof? I guess I should, after all it was me who brought up the topic first and it is you who is questioning my sanity. :)

"The point that I have been trying to make here is that it is neither a male-oriented world nor a female-oriented world, but that gender roles and power distribution just don't break down that easily."

When I said that the US is a male-oriented society, I was not referring to gender roles nor power distribution, although these things are small parts of it. I can't provide a summary in just a few sentences because that wouldn't do the topic justice.

BTW hope you have a great holiday season that is filled with turkey, ham, and roast beef, perhaps even some Turducken. Chicaneo 23:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for all the good work on the "race" related articles. I would like to contribute more, but I don't have a lot of spare time, I have a three very small children, so my time is always a bit limited. There seems to be quite a lot of racists here at the moment, I suspect they have migrated over from stormfront recently when Sugaar noticed the message there calling for people to come and disrupt wikipedia. Now they seem intent on compromising the integrity of wikipedia by spreading their distortions and lies. The article from the BBC was interesting, as this was actually placed on the White people talk page here. I wonder if many of these "cites" are merely recycled from sites like stormfront with as much "racist" spin put on them as possible. Anyway here's a Barnstar.

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for all the good work. Alun 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ID

I hope what I wrote on the talk page did not seem personal or insulting. If it did I sincerely apologize. I think your edit was a consensus motivated attempt to reach a reasonable compromise. That is a worthy cause that I fully support. I think the article is in good hands and I'm glad you're a contributor there. Cheers! Mr Christopher 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

The intro section has been actively discussed and edited in the last several days. Please bring your concerns to the talk page before monkeying with it.

Also, note there is an otheruses4 template at the top of the article explaining that the subject is biological evolution and pointing the way to Evolution (disambiguation).

--N6 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your current debate about the term ID having been around a long time

psycho, i agree with you 100%. and whether the term itself has been around does not matter the concept has been around since the dawn of man. they use the argument the ID is just paley's watch redone. then say it is something the DI dreamed up. they cant have it both ways

i am willing to work with you to change the text in a way that gets accorss you idea.

see i am for what is accurate even if a creepy person like originates it or brings it up

raspor 23:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Psychohistorian

There has been no input to this for a month. I propose archiving it, and if the dispute is unresolved I recommend mediation, as it appears to involve only a few users' interactions with each other. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration Template

Hey, this is merely a rough draft, but if you could tell me what you want me to change about Template:IIUS (the template for the illegal immigration debate in the US that you requested) that'd be incredible. --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 16:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, well the reason I put the statue of liberty was because of the famous "Give me your tired, your poor, you weak ..." quote that seems to be the center of the debate (whether the U.S. should abide by it or not), but that's ok if you want me to change it. If your looking for NPOV in a picture though - those wouldn't be it. the first shows reckage behind a flag - implying illegal immigration will lead to destruction, the second one is called, "Americans Attacked" shows an ethnic group "attacking" Americans - implying that immigrants will hurt Americans and the last one shows an angry person waiving a flag. But regarldess of all of this - using a picture of actual people on temlates probably isn't a good idea - usually there's a symbol of some kind. I'll work on finding one and then ok it with you. Thanks!--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, so I'm soooo sorry for not replying to you in a while. First my internet conection went down and then i went to visit family - but I think I've made up for it - tell me how you like the template - I think I found a great (and yet surprisingly simple - I shoulda though of it before) image (I was trying to find one of the US/Mexico border - but I think this one will do)--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was a good or bad vote ... haha. Well anyways, I'm currently trying to figure out if I can adjust BOTH the height and width of an image (i.e height =x width =y) - just because in order to make the image the width i want the height is too big ... but so far the prospects are glim. I'll get back to you.--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Second idea - I get a small pic of anti immigration debate and opposite of it a small pic of pro-immigration debate. --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I think I got it - there are now two versions. The first you'll see has a pic of a kid in the 2006 protest for immigration rights (I was going to put a flyer for the protest that said, "No school, no eating... and then it also had its demands in larger print, "Immediate amnesty, no increased restrictions" ect. - but it was copyrighted), and then at the bottom it has a picture of uncle sam welcoming a bunch of immigrants (implying that he's hiring them for jobs because he can pay them low wages) and an american family left out on the street because of it. This represents both sides of the issue really well I think. But moving on, the other one is what you saw before, CHECK it OUT!! Template:IIUS

--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, although I must say you cant be too worried about being politically correct. I mean - not having a cartoon that has at least one white, black, hispanic, and asian person in it is ok. And at the same time, there are plenty of non hispanic peoples who are for illegal immigration, and I noticed taht you didn't mention that... Anyways, I'll work on finding a few more images, but if nothing else works we'll have to go with the crazy big continent one. --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Template Section

Ok, this is the biggest thing ever. It's my last shot - just because it took me so long to get the syntax right. Check out the template - what i have is a lot of flags from central american countries (the ones with people most likely to immigrate) (and if you tell me that I need to include Canada - I will track you down :-D jk) and then the US flag. If you could give me some feedback on this ASAP that'd be great - cause if you don't want it I'll start working on the other one - and I'd like to finish this by today, you know, actually put the templates on. Talk to you soon! (Note: I might be gone for a bit, but still comment asap in case I get to a computer while I'm away (it should only be for a few hours max))--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR report

I reported your WP:3RR violation here: WP:AN/3RR --Ramsey2006 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

You wrote to me that you were under the impression that I did not analyze the dispute closely enough and unjustly only punished you. I can promise you though, that that was not the case, however. There was indeed an edit war on the page, and I looked at it closely to try to see who violated 3RR and what punishment would be appropriate. I realize that other editors were involved, however I did not believe that anyone but you violated that rule. Determining what constitutes a reversion and what should be included in the 3RR count is rather subjective, but while you had at least 5 clear reverts, for other users no such clear violation existed in my view. User Ramsey came close, but I only counted three real reverts. As to protecting the page, that is usually done to prevent an edit war, however by the time of your block, the activity on that page diminished to an extent where I saw no need for such an action. TSO1D 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Hey, so I was just wondering if you could reply to the IIUS template, all I need is a vote on which one you want ...--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm off

I'm off because of this. I'm unhappy here anyway. You are an excellent bloke. Have a good life. Love. Alun 02:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[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)

Further note: I am sorry to hear about the pressures you are experiencing on Wikipedia at the moment. If you want a chat, please drop by my talk page - I'm editing at simple.wikipedia, but check my w:en page all the time; if you feel you've been experiencing injustice, do drop by and let me know - I don't want to see you leave. Kind regards, Anthony.

[edit] Immigration

You want to "fight it passing"? What does that mean? It does not appear to be heading towards acceptance, at any rate. >Radiant< 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al.

Hello, sorry to disturb but I thought you might be interested in commenting on this rfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LSLM·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)