User talk:Ramdrake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Skeptic resources for R&I

Hi Ramdrake. The self-identified group of individuals capable of analysing what is pseudoscience or not is The Skeptics Society (of which I am myself a member). I would encourage you to delve into the writings of this group, there are several texts directly addressing the question if R&I is pseudoscience. Notable publications include

  • The Skeptic Dictionary, with a section on IQ and Race. It's linked from the main article page. direct link. Note the Further Reading section at the bottom of the web page, there is a lot of good material, including a vitriolic discussion with TC.
  • Why people believe weird things by Michael Shermer [1]. Shermer is the founder of the Skeptic's Society
  • Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen, by Frank Miele, another Skeptic editor. This is a looong interview with Arthur Jensen.
  • Skeptic magazine issue 3 (1995)—if you can get it from your library! A special issue devoted to R&I in reaction to The Bell Curve. The only text I can find on-line is Miele's interview with R&I critic Robert Sternberg. here. At the same link, I found Miele's earlier inteview with Charles Murray, here.
  • Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, already covered at length
  • Richard Dawkins has a whole chapter on race (i.e., about homo sapiens) in his latest book, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life. He says clearly and explicitly that Lewontin is wrong. Race does exist. As usual, this is absurdly well written.

Read them and make up you own mind. The "R&I is evil pseudoscience" POV is made in the first two references. In stark contrast, Miele clearly views Arthur Jensen as one of the most eminent scientists of today. After something like two decades of thinking about this (as an amateur in these matters, even though I am a working scientist in a different field myself) I have come to Miele's conclusion. I started out being in Shermer's camp. I have some Swedish-language Skeptic references as well, if you want them! Arbor 13:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just found this collection of internet forum discussions (?) in reaction to the Bell curve (?). Don't know how readable it is. Arbor 14:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm on it. --Ramdrake 10:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Hey Ramdrake, I hope you don't mind if I re-format that comment to remove the fragmentation.. I find it kind of distracting to have my comment broken up.--Nectar 13:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good call on the finely-nuanced change from "ongoing" to "recurring"

I'm referring to the change you just made in the Creation-evolution controversy entry. Greeneto 19:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Gee - thanks! :)

[edit] 3RR

As you seem not to be familiar with our policies, and as you keep removing material, I want to make sure you are familiar with the 3RR rule. This says we may not revert more than three times in 24 hours, and if we do, we may be reported and blocked from editing. A revert is any undoing of another editor's work, not only reverting to a previous version of a page, and it need not involve the same material each time. Please review WP:3RR carefully. I'm leaving this here because it's customary to warn editors once before reporting violations. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat article an talk page

Thanks for yor help on the main image discussion! I take it then that "|thumb" added to an image creates a thumbnail image, then? Good to know! LinaMishima 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mahalo

Thanks for helping out on R&I, and keeping me in the loop on other issues. Your diligence is much appreciated! --JereKrischel 03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Great article, Ramdrake! I'm about half-way through it, and it has been very informative. Thanks for mentioning it to me, and for all your help with the R&I article! --JereKrischel 22:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ramdrake, I've been a bit busy lately, but I'm still interested in improving the R&I article. Hopefully Rikurzhen will come back in due time, and offer up his important perspective. I'll see if I can pick a disputed section (and related sub-article) to NPOVize sometime this weekend. --JereKrischel 16:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Hi Ramdrake, can you let me know if the RfC is ready or if you have more to say? (You guys have written twice as much as I have.)--Nectar 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Done?--Nectar 06:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Ramdrake, thank you for the RfC wording clarification. I think it represents the core issues in a more eloquent way now. --JereKrischel 23:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrongness

Rikurzhen, I still need you to define what you would accept as an argument that the research (or its results or it conclusions) is scientifically wrong. Please humor me: it's the third time I'm asking this question.--Ramdrake 12:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Same answer as for any kind of science. Concrete counterexamples, for example. Of course, you would need to be specific about what kind of claim you want a hypothetical "wrongness" proof for. "Existence of IQ gap between subpopulations with different biogeographic ancestry" would be easy to disprove. But we are derailing the debate about what to do with the non-explicit PF accusations, which is why I respond here not there. Arbor 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your note

Hi Ramdrake! Thanks for your sensible note on the IQ article. I added a reference to a review book where this is discussed. Petruspennanen 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rikurzhen mystery

Hey Ramdrake, yeah, I noticed the deletion of Rikurzhen's stuff as pretty out of character too...I seem to remember seeing him slap up a "I'm busy" note first, before requesting speedy delete, but I couldn't say for sure. I can't imagine anyone being able to steal his password to make edits to his account without him immediately creating another account and notifying an administrator, so a hack seems unlikely, but who knows what might be going on IRL. In any event, it seems odd, and I hope he's okay. I'll leave a message on his talk page and see if he responds at all. --JereKrischel 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feral Pigeon

Hi Ramdrake. There is such a thing as a feral pigeon. This is an article on them Feral Pigeon. --WikiCats 14:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pets in the wild

Thanks for your sensible comment about pets living in the wild. Here in New Orleans we had a large problem with packs of ferral dogs roaming the city. Now after the deluge it is a HUGE problem. One of my cats and one of my neighbors cats was killed by a pack of 20 or so in the Lower Garden District. A pack about 60 or 70 strong runs around City Park. We catch some and put them down but more soon come to take their places. It's very, very depressing. L0b0t 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Mathews on Steve Irwin

You've obviously done a rash decision reverting my last change wholesale. At the very least please take a moment to respond to my comment on the talk page. Thanks. [[User:Jean- Philippe|Jean-Philippe]] 21:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gould: race, IQ. brain size and correlatins thereof

You have now gone over your 3 revert limit. You have about half an hour before i report you if you do not revert the article to what was there. If you do not, i will be forced to report you for going over your limit, and you will be banned for amount of time. Ernham 18:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you just did what I think you did, you are in some deep trouble. I'm reporting you regardless because of recent behavior i have observed in regards to page editting. I tried to be nice. I suspect you will be in serious trouble for what seems like editing the history page as well as violating the 3 rever rule.Ernham 19:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know how I could do that, as I don't know how, and I certainly don't have the admin rights to do this. Looks like you just miscounted the number of full reverts, that's all. Cheers!--Ramdrake 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You should have read the revert section above, as it does not have to be the exact same revert, in whole or in partial. You've clearly broken that rule; however, it seems as though wikipedia had some weird database issue or you managed to also alter your last revert, the one I told you to do in order to put my revert back and save yourself from being reported. That one. Who knows, other than you.Ernham 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Sign Your Comments

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! alphaChimp(talk) 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MoM controversial

Ramdrake, come on. There is a huge section of the article devoted to criticism of Gould's book. Do you, personally, really not know that the book is controversial? Do you really question that fact? For example after reading the article? For otherwise that was a dishonest edit and below the standard of contributions I have come to expect from you. If you question the veracity of a statement in WP that is unsourced, you are indeed free to remove it. But in this case... You might as well remove the word book in "MoM is a book" and ask for somebody to verify that. But... I'll put a harsh paragraph on the controversial nature of the book in the introduction (which used to be there anyway), citations and all, if you really want to. Arbor 06:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war with racist fools

Hello, I was perusing the 3RR boards and came across your dispute with a user over race and IQ. I haven't heard anyone mention J. Phillippe Rushton in many years. It brought a smile to my face thinking that anyone in the 21st century could take Rushton's vitriolic hyperbole as true science. My medical training is limited (I was a combat medic in the U.S. Army about 15 years ago.), but I am a scholar of conspiricies, fringe groups, historical revisionism, and the like. So I can speak with some authority and say that any "scientific" study that is published by the Charles Darwin Research Institute (which only lists a post office box in Port Huron, Michigan as a contact address) can be discounted on it's face. My copy of "Race, Evolution, And Behavior: A Life History Perspective" is a very nice hardbound that I found in a John Birch Society bookstore run out of the garage of a very sweet, but EXTREMELY racist elderly woman in Thomasville, Georgia. Keep up the good fight, and would you mind if I used your userbox about race being an artificial construct? I try to convince people of that but they never want to learn. L0b0t 15:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I was shocked to recently learn that there are people who still give credence to telegeny (the idea that a "white" female who has intercourse with a "non-white" male has her blood tainted, and if she procreates with a "white" male she runs the risk of producing "black" babies.). One might as well bring back phrenology, or say that disease is caused by an imbalance of bodily humours (When we all know that disease is caused by a small dwarf or gnome living in one's belly.). Cheers L0b0t 18:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Learn how to spell its and conspiracies, and how to make links without underscores. -lysdexia 20:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.175.213 (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2006
Gaze at User:69.108.175.213 throwing stones from their own glass house and despair. Sorry Ramdrake, it's a mystery to me. L0b0t 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I just don't understand it. I don't think I've ever edited the same page as that user (apart from this one). Oh well. Cheers. L0b0t 23:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ernham

Hello. While I'm not in any position to say the user in question has the worst attitude on the project he (I assume) certainly has the worst attitude of anyone I've come into contact with. Having said that I would hate to appear vindictive. The user has been well warned by several users so if there are any further personal attacks or incivility I will seriously consider raising it. Feel free to contact me any time about this or any other issue. Mark83 22:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the revert, but he's gone again. From WP:CITE:

"Inline citations for uncontroversial common knowledge items are not necessary. Common knowledge facts are those that appear in multiple reference textbooks for the field, all of which are listed in the references section of the article."

So the references at the bottom of the page are sufficient and extra ref tags are not necessary. His actions are disruptive. Jeff3000 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He past 3RR on another page, so I reported him there as well. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. -- Jeff3000 22:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernham RFC

I've asked the Wikipedia community to comment on Ernham's edits. You may want to respond to this RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ernham. Mark83 15:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well as I said earlier I was reluctant, however the personal attacks are at the very least as bad as ever. Mark83 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence

Yes, in my opinion it is a personal attack. I've removed it. Mark83 19:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I know it was tongue-in-cheek, however given the advice Ernham has been given to avoid personal attacks, this edit summary was maybe not the best idea. Try to rise above it! Mark83 19:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi I do agree that the ones for estimations are removed who lived before but I don#t appreciate somebody just wiping out my work. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

HI yes I agree. I was trying to help. Da Vinci is clearly one of the most brilliant universal genius all timw but of course the IQ of 220 is an estimate. My IQ is 145 and I passed all of my exams with A*s and A's at A level with a special level disticntion in history but imagine if your IQ was that high!!!! I have cut the estimates out of the list and kept a small list of fact. I really think it needs a list of various IQs so people can compare intelligence. We have a compromise? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We have a compromise, if you can keep the list down to those who have actually been measured, and can provide a link to a site which says these are genuine IQs, not just estimates.--Ramdrake 22:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PETA

I simply went by the source you provided. It has columns 'surrendered by owner', 'reclaimed by owner', 'adopted', 'euthanised' etc. and I just followed those values. That some of the 'surrenders' were inteded to be temporary could be true, but the source doesn't specify that. I guess that's the problem with primary sources and why WP discourages using it. Crum375 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we are in agreement. The way I read the report, they get X animals, some from owners, some stray, some (most) 'other'(?). Then they 'dispose' of them: Y by owners reclaiming, Z by adoption, E by euthanising, etc. The bottom line is that of the X animals the receive overall, they euthanize E. I understand you say that part of the 'surrendered' group was intended for neutering and is only 'surrendered temporarily', but the table doesn't give me that breakdown. So AFAICT, the overall ratio is E/X for euthanasia in a given year. If I plug in 2005 numbers, I get: X=9960, and E=1964, while Z+Y=7795+146=7942. Of the animals that were not adopted or reclaimed, X-Z-Y they euthanized the majority/most, 1964. Please correct me if I am wrong. Of course someone could say all of this is WP:OR from raw data in a primary source, but that's my best understanding at this point. Crum375 00:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
What you say makes a lot of sense. The 'other' category certainly seems very close to the 'reclaimed' category, and the numbers you mention and conclusions sound interesting. I would be happy to see a reliable source analyze these primary numbers from a primary source and present conclusions. Even if the source is a reputable anti-PETA site or publication, it could still be acceptable (IMO) if it did the analysis that you did above, and we could cite it. We would still have to phrase it carefully, for example, "According to XXX, (a known PETA critic,) PETA euthanasia rates are higher than other animal welfare organizations, as shown in documents filed with the state of VA." The parens are optional language if the source is non-neutral. If there is some pro-PETA or neutral site that analyzes the numbers differently, we'd have to present that too. But given all of that, we can't do it unless we have those types of sources and data. We can't as WP editors just analyze the primary numbers and reach our own conclusions. There could be other circumstances involved. We don't know for a fact what 'other' is, although we suspect it. Bottom line: let's find the proper sources and cite them. Crum375 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, it's that type of conversation and consensus building that makes the two of you (Ramdrake, and Crum375) such a pleasure to work with. Cheers. L0b0t 12:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ramdrake, that anti-PETA site seems so non-neutral that it's off the scale. In addition, they don't really explain the 'other' column - they just ignore it (I guess with the assumption that it is the 'brought in for spaying/neutering'). I would feel better to just say that PETA euthanizes the majority of animals which are not adopted or reclaimed by their owners, using the neutral VDACS reference. I am not sure we need the PETA-kills or PETA-sucks type references - each time we use one these we make WP's supposed neutrality, and hence credibility, take a giant hit. If your point is that other organizations have a higher rate of finding homes for abandoned pets, then I think we would need better neutral secondary-type sourcing showing that. For the fact that PETA euthanizes the rejects I think the primary source is good enough, when coupled with PETA's own stated policy. Do we really need the non-neutral sites? Crum375 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me first say that I am neither a PETA supporter nor basher, but I am an abashed WP supporter. And as the latter, I truly want anything we say to be well supported by verifiable and neutral sources. In this case, these anti-PETA sites are so non-neutral they make me, and probably many people like me, almost totally ignore them, as I suspect that someone that extreme and non-neutral would not be careful with either the raw data or the interpretation thereof. OTOH, it could very well be that everything they say is 100% true. So what we need in this case is to try to exclude the bad part from the equation as much as possible - the bad part being the (seemingly) unreliable non-neutral anti site. The raw data from VA is acceptable as raw data, but we need someone neutral to interpret it for us, as the 'other' column is not clear. Your suggestion to ignore altogether the 'adopted' column because the numbers are small can create the false impression that PETA does not allow adoptions, or prefers euthanasia to adoption. This is exactly the danger in us doing the editorializing. The way I phrased it there is no editorializing, only facts. I can see, however, why you say that it can mislead some people into incorrect assumption of the actual adoption/euthanasia numbers. I guess the choice is between just saying the correct statement I suggested above, vs. waiting for a neutral reliable source to mention it. One problem I see with my original suggestion to let even an anti-site present an opinion alongside the pro-site, is that we may not have a pro-site statement handy. In that case we would need to wait for either the balancing pro-site or a neutral site. And PETA's own statements are always acceptable (sourced to them) in their own article when referring to themselves. BTW, my points are all general, not specifically for PETA but any controversial organization or item. And this is of course only my own opinion and understanding of WP's rules and spirit. Crum375 14:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I read your references, and re-read the current version of the article. I think the lead as it stands is OK, and then reading the Euthanasia section, it seems to me that it is OK also. It pretty much has the VA numbers, the SF criticism, Newkirk's statement about her preferring animals dead than suffering in cages, etc. Reading your mind, I think what bothers you the most is that you believe that PETA doesn't try enough to find homes for its animals, as compared to other animal welfare organizations, and you feel that this is not reflected in the article. You may well be right, but at this point I have seen no evidence (i.e. actual apples-to-apples comparison) that proves your presumption. Again, I am not disputing it, but to include it in WP we would need some hard evidence (good sources) that I have yet to see. It seems a lot of PETA critics make hay from the fact 'they kill animals' while showing pictures of cute puppies or promoting vegetarianism. But I think the article is very clear that PETA does not have a 'no kill' policy, openly supporting and practicing euthanasia. I think that relating Newkirk's statements about her past work and philosophy really drives the point home. That's my current take - you read me correctly - all I care about is WP presenting its subjects in the most neutral, balanced and factual way (where factual = well sourced = neutral sources wherever possible). Crum375 18:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing within Wikipedia

I'm a bit confused. I referenced from one Wikipdia article to another, and the replicated but condensed text taken from an article of the same volume to another should not need further attribution, as the validity of the referenced article should stand on its own. Nor should it create any issues regarding “copying,” especially since by definition no copyright applies to Wikipedia text.

I'm not seeing the problem here. Unless you site a specific issue, I'm at a loss to redress your concern.

With all due respect.


Kevin Murray 03:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shockley

Ramdrake,

Your explanation clarifies your concern. However, I think the problem become transfered to the actual Shockley article.

It seems that my work is properly referenced to Wikipedia standards, but the concern becomes whether the paragraph at Shockley is properly referenced.

Why don't we put a reference tag at Shockley too, to see whether an editor there will be able to more clearly support that research.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position.

Sincerely,

Kevin

You are right that the root of the problem lies (IMHO at least) with the Shockley article. However, as I have only a limited amount of time to devote to Wikipedia, I decided not to try to edit that article too (I am currently watching and sometimes editing about 50 articles already). If you want to put a (CN) tag in the Shockley article too, I think that's ideal.--Ramdrake 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd you might find of interest

Good hello, I came across this AfD you might be interested in- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_african_type. Not trying to votespam or anything, just thought this might be something you would like to read. Cheers. L0b0t 15:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's another one you may also like to read at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilotic type --Strothra 16:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Any more nonsense on the Rushton article and you'll be permanently blocked.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.211.52.10 (talk)

[edit] Rushton, again

Hey Ramdrake, I'm trying to see if Liketoread or Minorcorrections can come up with a single sentence or paragraph they'd add to the overview of Rushton's tri-level hierarchy theory. They keep reverting back to the blow-by-blow recounting of his Race, Evolution and Behavior book. Any help you can provide in explaining to them my concerns is appreciated! --JereKrischel 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sniffing out sockpuppets

I suppose the only way for non-admins to find out if someone is a sockpuppet is to analyze their contributions. Comparing Liketoread and Minorcorrections seems to imply that they are in fact, different people. Minorcorrections is a bit more broad than Liketoread (edits more than just Rushton), even though both of them started editing mid-September 2006. Now the other anon-ip folk very well may be Liketoread sockpuppets, but we'd have to do a fairly good job of comparing their contribution times to establish them as the same person. I think there is also recourse on the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser page, assuming that the admins can in fact find the IP address of named contributors. Probably the most polite thing to do is to leave Liketoread a link to the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry article, and warn him that any forbidden use will be reported. --JereKrischel 03:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L0b0t's chums

Thanks for catching that. I was busy playing Unreal. Wow, I had my first user page vandal and my first personal attack today. I guess I'm doing something right. Thanks again. Cheers. L0b0t 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Carleton S. Coon

You may wish to watch this article. There's an editor, finalnow (talk • contribs) who's attempting to make edits to support Coon's work as truth without presenting him in an historical context - not to mention making blatantly POV edits. Anyway, I think the article may be of interest to you. --Strothra 03:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your request

I'm afraid I have no "enlightened opinion" to give. I'm honestly not sure what to do. The warnings, the RFC, the blocks - all have had no effect whatsoever. Another user suggested an ArbCom request if the user's behaviour did not improve. I'm looking into whether this is justified. In the interim I'll have to put up with edit summaries such as "RVV again you vandalize and are unable to read a cite. The poll is on the same page as that article.Learn to read, for the fourth time" [2]. On past form even the edits you refer to could be proved to be deliberate disruption and Ernham was warned or temporarily blocked he would just continue afterward. Had he edited the pages before? Mark83 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well that of course is what is totally unacceptable. You shouldn't be put off editing because you feel the need to tip-toe around another user. Mark83 22:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you should unrevert yourself. There are others who are still below their quota, like me, who can revert. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Please unrevert yourself, or someonw will block you. Under WP:3RR, un-reverting will bring you back below the limit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Yes, unfortunately I saw that. I'm glad you unreverted, I can't be seen to ignore that since I reported Ernham so I had listed your reverts at the bottom of his report. I've since updated it after your unrevert. Probably best to leave it there so the processing admin can understand that you unreverted. This really wasn't the way to go, perhaps a case of loosing your cool? Good move rethinking though! Mark83 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I hope you understand it gave me no pleasure to report you, like I said I didn't want to be seen to report Ernham and overlook your edits. I sympathise with "getting under your skin". Do you know how many times he's called me a vandal? Too many to count! Best regards Mark83 01:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A query about Quebec

Bonjour ! Désolé d'écrire comme ça en haut de la page, mais c'est urgent !

Je suis journaliste pour La Presse et je cherche à comprendre pourquoi la page du Québec dans Wikipedia anglais a été bloquée et quels genres de vandalisme on y trouve. Pouvez-vous me contacter ?

Nicolas Ritoux

[edit] explanations article

ramdrake, i don't know what to do with JK and the explanations article. he seems to be confusing topics which are normally distinct in the literature (e.g., group and individual differences), in other cases making strange distinctions (racialist vs hereditarian -- i think he may have accused me of malfeasance for writing arguments that support a genetic explanation), doesn't seem to be reading carefully enough to get the point of papers (maybe seeing what he would like them to say), and seems to be highly agitated about my tagging his claims as disputed (the disputed tag means "I" am disputing the neutrality of his claim not necessarily that the claim is itself disputed in the literature). i'm going to let him cool off for a while. maybe you can find some sense in his claims and/or explain to him what he's misunderstanding. --Rikurzhen 04:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

wrt individual vs group -- i believe that was the point of the first sentence of the article. --Rikurzhen 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit fuzzy on the first half of your reply. Take a look at the first paragraph and quote in this section of the article: Race_and_intelligence_(Explanations)#Shared_and_nonshared_environmental_effects. There is in fact a mathematical relationship between within group heritability (WGH) and between group heritability (BGH), but it involves two unknowns and thus does not have a solution. By fleshing out the various ways that WGH and BGH could be related, Jensen (e.g. 1998) has proposed various solutions to these equations, included ones that he favors (a non-zero BGH) and those that Flynn might favor (an interaction factor - what Jensen calls Factor X, because it is as yet unidentified). Rushton and Lynn's *theories* are definitely not mainstream -- AFAIK they don't even agree with one another in the details. The data that they base their theories one is more widely accepted (e.g. the IQatWoN country averages) than the theories themselves. However, all of the Lynn/Rushton stuff is "Significance and evolution of races" (as we call it in the table) and not the main crux of (for example) Jensen's views (which were first written out in 1969, decades before Lynn and Rushton came on the scene). I didn't know about Lynn and Rushton's theories before I started doing reading for this article -- it would be a mistake to equate them with hereditarianism. Clearly when 52% of respondents to S&R's survey picked partly genetic they weren't thinking about Rushton's theories. --Rikurzhen 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
(1)When you talk about an overabundance of Lynn and Rushton, are you referring to discussion of their race-evolution hypotheses, or their reviews of data like worldwide IQ scores and brain size measurements? The former hardly gets any mention in the main article, the latter is found frequently because it is cited frequently -- new article out this week that uses IQatWoN's data, which got written up in The Guardian(?).
(2) I'm not sure what exactly is the material of concern about WGH-BGH. The discussion in Jensen (1998) of their relationship takes up a huge chapter. I think what we have in the article is just the highlights - the g factor stuff, the lack of effect within group of many environmental factors hypothesized to cause difference between groups, etc. None of these in itself is "proof" in a mathematical sense -- that's why the debate continues today. It think enough care has been taken to not make any unintended implications.
(3) When you talk about race and Rushton, I'm getting lost. It also confuses me about what JK as written. As per (1), I don't see an overabundance of mention of Rushton evolutionary theories. You wrote "I think part of the problem is not properly separating the hereditary from the racial, as I think JK is trying to say." When you write "racial" do you mean evolutionary explanation for race differnece (from Rushton/Lynn), or do you mean making phenotypic comparisons of races? Claims about the former are not necessarily claims about the latter. As per Risch, all varieties of odd things have been said about the utility of race, but for the most part these kinds of considerations do not pop up in the technical debates about whether BGH is zero or not -- for example, in the APA report. --Rikurzhen 22:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

i just noticed JK's last comment here and drafted a response to it. The response is not pretty and essentially comes down to me saying that JK doesn't know what he's talking about because he's not done enough reading or misunderstand what he's read. of course, this is unlikely to yield any progress, and i don't know what to do about it. --Rikurzhen 02:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

based on his last reply, it is clear that JK does not intend to comply with WP policies on original research. my attempts to reason with him have failed, and he appears to intend to frustrate any attempts by me at correction. given the recent absence of activity from prior editors, your input is probably the only hope for the explanations article. -- as an aside, JKs quest is misguided: there is more than sufficient published literature to present a compelling case for an all-environment explanation. (see for example the the 2006 ISIR conference abstract book for some new papers.) --Rikurzhen 06:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cats project newsletter

Hello. Please find here a copy of the first Cats WikiProject newsletter. Please feel free to make any comments, suggestions, etc., here or at the project page itself. Thank you. Badbilltucker 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for catching that vandalism on my userspace. That user was a very busy bee today. What I really don't understand is the use of homosexual as a perjoritive. Is that still seen as insulting in the 21st century? Cheers.L0b0t 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please review WP:VAND

From Wikipedia:Vandalism:

  • Do not use these templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement.
  • Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. (emphasis added)

Please consider making use of the dispute resolution process instead of leaving apparently spurious warnings on other users' talk pages. Luna Santin 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr nonsense

I know very well what I can do and cannot do, as I obviously stated in last edit summary. I knew from my very edit that I would be ultimely be reverted by the mob, but I don't mind. Someone has to stand up for Wikipedia ideals even when nobody else does :-) Jean-Philippe 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert to Creation-evolution controversy

Ramdrake, please refrain from accusing other editors of POV-pushing without solid evidence. I was asked by Adam Cuerden to try and improve the Creation-evolution controversy page from the perspective of a creationist that understands WP's policies. Help:Revert#Dont's states very clearly that good-faith edits should not be reverted but rather should be improved upon or discussed. As is evident from the discussion I started at the Talk:Creation-evolution controversy page, the creationist disagreements with evolution are much more than disagreements with biological evolution alone. Please join me on the talk page there if you would like to contribute but remember to assume good faith. standonbibleTalk! 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Cat and ownership

Well, it's long, and boring, and the same points get said over and over at this point because both sides stubbornly think they're in the right. I've found it handy to back off and review and reconsider when that starts happening, because a fresh point of view makes for more interesting and intelligent discussion, more often than not. Nique1287 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cats in Australis

Yo. Feral cat. Zweifel 01:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foie gras

I've replied to your message on my talk page. Shimeru 07:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foie gras mediation request

Hi! I'm writing to let you know that I've opened up a mediation case (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-27 Foie Gras controversy) in which you are listed as a participant. Please read me comments in the mediator's response area there, and we can decide on a text for the article. ST47Talk 23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socks

WP:RFCU. Whether a sock or not, it's obvious that editors with an AR bent are coming from outside Wikipedia to edit that article. It's a problem I don't know has a good solution. SchmuckyTheCat 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The new kid on the foie gras block is starting to sound eerily familiar in writing, editing and argument style. Should we call for a formal investigation, again?--Boffob 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Copy from my talk page (in case you haven't read it): Feel free to do it. I'm not too familiar with the procedure.--Boffob 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject France

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aloha and mahalo from California!

Good to see you back! Spent x-mas in Hawaii with the family, but I'm back in California now, and it's been a chilly 74 degrees :). Looks like the R&I articles are finally getting sufficient attention, but it's still been difficult to find consensus. Got access to a bunch of academic databases, so I've actually gotten to read some of the sources cited - been very interesting. Hopefully with a little bit of work, we can improve the article to read more like an encyclopedia than a research paper in a journal. Thanks again for all your contributions! --JereKrischel 23:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race

I agree with you that the article should not be dictated by a compromise between only two people. I think there are many conflicts in play. I just believe this - and I believe, it strongly: conflicts will be resolved succesfully only if they are handled one at a time. I proposed to start with JK and Rikurzhen not because they are the only people involve din the conflicts but because conflicts between them has so dominated discussion. It is purely tactical, to begin with them, but i think a timely tactic. If we could resolve a few of the conflicts between them - and thus reduce the verbiage on the talk page (which has such a high noise to signal ratio a lot of excellent signal keeps getting lost and has gotten lost consistently for over a year), we could then proceed to the next conflict, whatever it is, and whomever it includes. That is my only agenda, and my rationale. By the ay, I happen to respect your contributions a good deal. I don't mean to exclude you, or anyone. I just am tired of seeing little change in this article over the past two years, and fundamental issues unresolved, and so much wasted discussion. I appreciate your comment and your restraint. Others lack the restraint so I guess my attempt is a failure, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WRN has been at it a long time and he is not going away, even if he is in the minority. Also, whether I agree with him or not, he knows a lot of the literature and I strongly believe that the conflicts around this article should not be decided by shifting majorities/minorities. This is obviously as stable as sand and just because he seems to be in the minority now does not mean it is effective for the current majority to take advantage of the situation. My guess is that he will accept the inclusion of views he rejects, including reconsiderations of the organization of the article, if some of his concerns are constructively addressed and it is proven to him that compliance with NPOV policy demands it.

In the meantime, I really think lots of editorializing by anti-racialists in the past have undermined their own cause. In any event, the main point of my statement was to try to summarize main points of contention between two people. It doesn't matter which two, but I think it has to be some two. It could be you and Rikurzhen rather than Jere and Rikurzhen. Oone reason I believe it has to be two is precisely the issue of taking responsibility, which I do not take to be the same thing as blame, is that if someone denies responsibility and drops out of a mediation it means, in my mind, that (1) they are not willing to hold their own views up to systematic scrutiny in the context of our NPOV, NOR and V policies, and (2) rely on the force of a majority of supporters to get their views included in the article, rather than their ability to prove the point, or (3) they just like the freedom of talk pages to express themselves endlessly rather than actually collaborate on a real improvement to the article (I am not pointing any fingers!).

And we have to start with a small list of points of contention that both parties agree are points of contention first, in order to start addressing them one at a time. It is th eone at a time-ness that I think is crucial, not excluding anyone. i.e. once two people agree "Yes, this is a major point of contention between us" then there is no reason why others cannot propose specific sollutions. The problem is, this is not what happens. Instead, others just chime in with other things they don't like about the article. And it goes nowhere!

If we agree, then I ask you to do me this favor: restate the approach to mediation/conflict resolution - restate it your own way, which hopefully will be clearer than what I wrote and thus more effective, and help me keep things organized. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks. See my most recent edit - a whole new section trying to mediate again. If you want to edit what I wrote to make anything clearer go ahead. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the issue of genetics vs. environment, versus genetics and environment, and how to talk about this, is itself a point of contention. I would just like you and Rikurzhen, or Futurebird and Rikurzhen, or JK and Rikerzhen to come to agreement over how to describe the disagreement! I really think that itself (how to word the nature of this disagreement, or the issue on which there are various positions, is itself a "getting humg up on" point of contention that needs to be addressed squarely). For now, I would rather limit my participation in the discussion and see if, say JK and Rik can come to some agreement and then comment on that. However, Rik himself said that most of the studies are based on people self-identifying as "race" which to me opens the door, wide-open to the question of what people mean by race. My own opinion is that as a rhetorical strategy and as a theoretical matter, it is utterly unproductive to argue that since race is socially-constructed there can be no relationship between race and intelligence (although I somethimes think this is what JK and futurebird think). I think Rik has even said that people who make this claim really are saying ultimately that the differences in scores are environmental, and I think JK resists this and I am not sure I understand why. I do think that even if Rik is right (as I read him) it is a mistake to then argue "therefore, race has no relationship to intelligence," on the contrary, this is the place where is is appropriate to add that race is socially constructed. i suspect there is a slippage and some people think that to say race is socially constructed means race isn't real. On the contrary, I would say race is very real, it is just real for political and economic reasons not genetic reasons. In other words, it is not "environment versus race" but "a sociological versus a genetic understanding of race." I suspect one point of contention is that everyone in this debate has taken both of these positions at different times, in order to make very different arguments!

I think that my second bullet point could be a point of departure for discussing all of this, if Rik and JK choose to. Also, if one takes the third bullet point to describe not a position in a debate but a debate itself, the third bullet point provides a place to discuss this. You might now think that this is not clear and therefore these bullet-points need to be rewritten. My only reply is, they should not be rewritten to accord with what I think, but rather in a way that helps move JK and Rik towards something they can agree on. And if you object to whatever it is they agree on, we can then discuss that disagreement and see if we can move to something Rik and JK and you agree on. And if futurebird has a problem with that, we can then discuss further ... and build a consensus one step at a time. Does this make sense? If it does not, if it surely because i misunderstood you, and I would invite you to try to explain it to me again. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


FYI: http://www.understandingrace.org/ Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JK and FB

I have high confidence in the ability of you and SLR to work on the article constructively. I have low confidence in JK and FB. I have no idea what to do about this. Perhaps you do. --W.R.N. 22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll go with the flow. --W.R.N. 23:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[3] looks like SLR will soon be bowing out. my last edit is an attempt to revive his mediation framework. --W.R.N. 19:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If everyone is done in accordance with policy, then I shouldn't expect to have any complaints. One general note: phrases like The most common view among intelligence researchers is are important, even when it's just intelligence researchers who hold that view. Between the APA, WSJ and S&R documents, the commonality of views among intelligence researchers is attributable/sourced/spelled out on most issues. Establishing commonality of views among other groups may not be easy because we don't have similar documents from those groups. I know JK finds this 'unfair' to an extent, but it's important to me that we don't try to diminish one discipline's views in order to give each discipline an "equal" contribution. --W.R.N. 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Sort of... see this policy page. The example there:

"According to most Australians, The Beatles are the best rock music group ever [Rock and Roll Survey 1998]"

The most common view among intelligence researchers is an attribution of the POV. You'd have to be careful about this, but for many claims there doesn't seem to be much dispute about what really is the most common view -- because survey data and collective statements exist. For many others' it's equally clear that the view can't be attributed to anyone but the author of the source. Doubtless there are intermediate cases where caution is warranted and attribution should be made narrowly. --W.R.N. 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] questsin

any interest in Artificial Intelligence? what's your take? seriously!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.121.48.34 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Race and Intelligence

I am not giving up ... I am just tired, and preoccupied with real work, and not sure what more I can contribute to mediation beyond things I have already said. Needless to say if I can help I will, gladly. However, i suspect that you will play a crucial role in shaping and negotiating anything JK and WRN might agree to. Right now, it still seems like WRN is largely repeating himself, and Futurebird and JK are having their own conversation ... Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do certainly feel like I'm largely repeating myself. When I get time to read the new comments on the talk page, I'll try to focus on responding only where forward movement is probable. --W.R.N. 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] do you understand?

do you understand what the conflict is here? i'm not sure i do. i thought we were at a solution. --W.R.N. 03:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Reagan

You made an excellent point regarding the referencing of the recently dead as opposed to the..well, more dead. It should be a part of the MOS, though. Funny that it isn't...Arcayne 03:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He's reverted it again. I've hit my max reverts for the day (he still has one, I think) . I will start a topic on the Talk Page, but I don't think the revert should stand. What do you think?

[edit] Ramdrake's cats

Hi Ramdrake. I'm glad the cats are doing well. One is Calico right? Do you believe in psychic abilities? I have them sometimes. I'm curious...you seem to dislike PETA because they euthanize too many animals, you have lovely cats that you seem to care very much about, yet you seem to be so protective of the foie gras industry, which is very abusive to animals. Do you have a hierarchy of animals in your mind where you think dogs and cats should have more of a right to kindness than other animals? I'm just wondering what your thought process is. You seem to be a potentially decent person with compassion for animals, so I am wondering what is going on with you. GingerGin 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Ramdrake. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I have been quite busy. Oh hang on, my potato just finished cooking in the microwave...haha, that sounds obscene, but I digress.... You say that if it wasn't for the farming industry, all those animals who are tortured never would have been born. Well, that's exactly my point! It would be so much better to not even breed these animals at all than to breed them with the knowledge that they will have to suffer. To defend a practice with the reasoning that it is a long held tradition is not a good defense. Slavery of people was a long held tradition for hundreds of years, yet when people finally started to stand up and say "hey, this is wrong" things began to change. Also, you say that other animal food industries are just as unpleasant as foie gras production. I agree with you on this, and also agree that something should be done to reform all animal preparation and slaughter practices, but this doesn't defend foie gras either. As an example, consider that in the US, and I presume in Canada, we do not cut peoples' hands off when they are caught stealing. However, some countries do that and even more horrible things to people without even a trial. Would it be a good argument for a government official in the US to propose that we start cutting a finger off people who steal and then defend the argument with the fact that other countries administer punishments that are equally as violent and even moreso? That may not be the best analogy, but you get my point.

So what's the deal with this Rhona person? Is she hot? Would you date her?GingerGin 22:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi! Oh no, you did not invade my privacy at all by asking if I was Rhona or Rona - I was just playing with ya. I see your point about it being hypocritical to bash (pardon the pun) foie gras and then eat another type of animal. You're right that in a truly ethical world we would all be vegetarians, or at the very least, practice ethical farming where the animal has a nice, natural life up until the end and then dies very quickly without any suffering. Right again that this is not economical and that unfortunately, most folks in society care more about money than about kindness and ethics. However, I don't know if you were exactly saying this, but I don't think that in order to help one group of animals, or people, or anything, that one needs to be 100% ethical without flaw in order not to be a hypocrate. When it comes to changing values or living ethically, I don't think that it has to be black or white. If someone agrees that eating meat contributes to the suffering of animals, but is not in a place in his or her life to quit meat altogether, that person can still contribute to reducing suffering by doing many things. For example, he could quit eating meat every Monday and Wednesday, or quit eating a particular animal that perhaps he has more affection for. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Perhaps it's not "fair" to go after one industry more than another, but where do you start? Why not start with an industry that doesn't really produce something that is considered a staple of the average diet? Perhaps if the people who eat the serloin steaks start by first giving up foie gras because they've seen how the ducks are treated, maybe next year they will make the connection that cows are treated just as badly and then begin to reduce or quit their meat consumption. Yes, it is targeting one industry over another, and that might not seem fair that some animal butchers get to have a job and some do not, but again, if we are going to help reduce suffering, we have to start somewhere, and foie gras seems to be something that even people who eat meat often see as unnecessary suffering. Also, why should we not try to help some animals even if others aren't getting as much help at the moment? I believe that every animal is an individual. I'm sure you can relate to this being a cat person. All of your cats are unique and have their own different little personalities. If you had 30 cats and they all had an illness and you could only save one, why would you ever say "oh, well there are so many and one doesn't make a difference?" Why shouldn't farm animals get the same consideration? Pigs, chickens, even cows have their own personalities and recognize people and are individuals. I think if we start thinking of each animal as a being with value, we would think about things quite differently. I mean, in some countries they eat cats and dogs and use their fur for clothing. Do you think it would be wrong if that country's citizens who empathized with cats and dogs tried outlaw this practice? Why is it different we are talking about ducks and geese? Well, that's my food for thought for today - of course it's vegetarian food! GingerGin 23:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do you want from me?

I have told you at least 3 times that all the photos from Farm Sanctuary that have been released to me for use on Wikipedia are not copyrighted. Anyone can freely use these particular photos. I work for Farm Sanctuary - I would know. What do you want ... a hand-written signed note sent directly to you from the president of the organization? Please let me know so I can stop wasting my time with this. FarmSanctuary 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat/Brooklyn5 <-- interesting conversation. SchmuckyTheCat 00:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farm Sanctuary

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Farm Sanctuary. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. Natalie 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have thought about asking for page protection, but having read the protection policy, they prefer that the people try to work it out before protecting a page. I'm not really sure what to do in this case, since I am a third party but have not been able to get people to talk about this before reverting. Requests for comment is another option. Natalie 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rfm

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --JereKrischel 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC).


Hey, you need to watchlist this page. There is no guarantee someone will actuall step up and mediate, so you need to watch that page to see if someone does. For more information, read this. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about to archive

Hey, before I archive it, will you make sure there is nothing here or in the following section - chock full of citations - that you want to put in one of the pages you are working on, but have not yet? By the way, I am curious to know how you think thinks have shaped up since I unprotected Race and Intelligence. If you prefer, you can e-mail me at slrubenstein {at} yahoo {dot} com. best, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why paint cats

Hey, have you seen the pictures of the painted cats? They are crazy. The book is supposedly fictional, but several people seen to write testimonials that they really paint their cats. My stepmom sent me an email with a bunch of the pics. I'll forward it to you if you want but I'd need your email. If you don't want to give it to me that's ok - I'll see if I can figure out some other way to show you the pictures. GingerGin 00:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How would I forward an email that I got to your email on here? GingerGin 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Please visit Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence and add your position. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ernham is back

Hi. I notice you've been involved in blocking User:Ernham before. He's just come back from his ban, and is already at it again, removing sourced references etc. he doesn't like with no attempt to discuss. I'm immensely frustrated at wasting time reverting him, and hope not to get sucked into another edit war. I'd appreciate your help in keeping an eye on him, especially his 'contribution' to Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua genocide. Thank you :) Greenman 12:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him at [4] and commented on a report of his against another user at [5]. It would be much appreciated if you could add your comments if you get a chance. Thank you :) Greenman 12:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/m/User_talk%7ERamdrake_e551.html"