User talk:Muntuwandi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Your refusal to enter into discussion 2 Request 3 Welcome back 4 New User: BorgesFour 5 improvement 6 about the Recent single origin hypothesis page 7 Michael Loren Mauldin 8 Merger? 9 Blocked for edit warring 9.1 Fourdee 10 About the article Race and Intelligence 11 White People Article 12 AN/I 13 Image for Hamitic Section 14 Pattern of original research, POV pushing and original research 15 Seriously 16 Deliberately Introducing Incorrect Information 17 Hey 18 WP 19 Citations 20 Be mindful of 3RR 21 Personal attack 22 Image:One drop rule.jpg listed for deletion 23 Light skin colors.jpg listed for deletion 24 Gallery 25 Carey collage at WP 26 Photos at WP 27 images for deletion 28 Blocked 29 absurd block 30 Mediation Cabal Case 31 Hello again 32 Possibly unfree Image:Mariah.jpg 33 ancient egypt 34 Note on edit summaries 35 Phral AN/I thing 36 Race and ancient Egypt (controversies) 37 trolls 38 Note 39 your approach to editing Wikipedia 40 Negroid 41 Race and genetics 42 wikibreak 43 Negroid 44 New Negroid 45 Sneaky people 46 Comments 47 Mayr and Race 48 race 49 Nonsense 50 I was quiet indeed... 51 Copyright problems 52 NOR 53 Image tagging for Image:Mbanza congo.JPG 54 Black people content dispute 55 Black American vs African American 56 Image:Afro diversity.jpg source and license 57 Bakongo and Black America 58 Image tagging for Image:Maiherperi2.jpg 59 Lovings photo 60 AfD nomination of Origin of religion 61 Tags (response) 62 Canvassing 63 Please work with other editors 64 Steven Mithen 65 AfD nomination of Steven Mithen 66 Albinism 67 Origin of religion DRV 68 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chimp-vocal-tract.png) 69 3RR warning 70 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Hills High School 71 Yo 72 your recent behaviour 73 Race of ancient Egyptians 74 R&I – a new approach 75 Blocked 76 Albino people 77 Email 78 Fred Wendorf 79 3RR 80 Hey :) 81 origin of religion 82 ArbCom 83 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Valtorta cave painting.jpg 84 Response to Request made on WikiAnthropology page 85 Race 86 Your name has been mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN/I 87 Indefinite block 88 Consensus can change 88.1 Is AFD immutable 89 Is Muntuwandi acting unilaterally 89.1 Some comments from Dbachmann 89.2 Comments from Anthropology project 90 Has MW tried to cooperate with PelleSmith 91 Has MW made any attempts at dispute resolution 92 Is it okay to recreate deleted content 93 AFD procedure 94 Conclusion 95 AfD nomination of Joseph and Luka Banda 96 Please cooperate 97 3RR on Origin of religion 98 Origin of language, table 99 AfD nomination of Dede (Indonesian) 100 Blond 101 Possibly unfree Image:Frankie fredericks.jpg 102 no pseudo-science please 102.1 wrong licenses on images 103 Are blacks more intelligent? 104 Proposed deletion of Ananda Lewis

[edit] Your refusal to enter into discussion

Muntuwandi, are you going to enter into a meaningful discussion on the Negroid talkpage, or are you going to continue to disrupt the article with your constant reversions? Bear in mind, refusing to do so will be interpreted as vandalism if you continue to revert. --Nordic Crusader 05:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Please to not give up because of one editor. I know it's frustrating, but your contributions are needed. Do not let someone's zeal push you away, do not give one person that power. Thanks. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, Jeeny, he doesn't contribute. --Nordic Crusader 22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Good to "see" you back. Keep your head up, dear Muntuwandi, and continue contributing to Wikipedia. But, one critique, use the edit summary please :). - Jeeny ^Talk 04:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New User: BorgesFour

Just might be a reincarnation of blocked user User:Nordic Crusader. Just in case you might like to be notified. I'll keep an eye on it myself: don't want to add to your headaches. :)--Ramdrake 12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] improvement

Hi Muntuwandi, and thanks. Fred ☻ 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about the Recent single origin hypothesis page

Muntuwandi, your contributions to what I wrote are very good. I removed the references to "clans" because Brian Sykes' book "The Seven Daughters of Eve" minimizes the fact that the entire root of the mtDNA tree is African - as you know, the entire non-African portion of the tree is just a very minor branch, a part of haplogroup L3e, and we are all the descendants of one of the "seven daughters", "Latisha". In any case, para-haplogroup L is just the root of the tree, with major branches in L0d, L0k, L1a, L1b, and L5 (under which much further down is L3e), and these main branches all predate the Toba Catastrophe of 71,500 years before present. I did want to mention the idea of some archaic admixture though. It seems, from what I know from both reading the literature and from personal communication from the Univ. of Arizona lab, that every single human population has some small degree of archaic admixture: some genes on the X chromosome in sub-Sahara Africa, the HLA-DPA1 0401 allele in Asia with a concentration of 50% in Yunnan, China, MAPT and PDYN in Europe, and a new allele in Papua New Guinea. Of course, it seems that the African effective population size at the time of the Toba Catastrophe was no more that 2000 people, and that as few as 150 people left Africa around 48,500 years before present - this is the date from the mtDNA, and also corresponds to the Y evidence (the tMRCA for the Y is only 58,500 years ago). The remarkable thing is that for the Asian alleles of the HLA-DPA1 region, the tMRCA with the other alleles is as far back as 1.9 million years ago with a very large number of SNPs (14) in common with black-tailed gibbons but not with other humans - a clear sign of admixture with Homo erectus. One could speculate that the chromosome 1 head to head fusion of two chimpanzee / bonobo and other great ape chromosomes 1a and 1b took place right at the time of the advent of Homo habilis, 2.4 million years ago, and therefore erectus and everything later than that was interfertile with anatomically modern humans, because erectus had 23 and not 24 pairs of chromosomes, just as we do. All of this has no implications regarding any one group vs. any other. All of us are equally closely related, merely a single tribe of Bushmen, with an equally small amount of archaic admixture here and there. Also, this didn't seem to affect how people look at all: The highest concentration of the archaic HLA antigen allele on Chromosome 6 is found among the matrilineal Naxi around Lugu Lake in Yunnan, at a rate of 50%, and if you look at photos of these women they look exactly like any other women from China (and American Indians, just as other Asians, carry this allele at a much lower percentage). Also, it turns out (from a major article in the journal Nature in the fall of 2006) that the final separation from chimpanzees and bonobos took place as recently as 4 million years ago (from evidence on the X chromosome). This moves forward the dating of the mtDNA tree by 33% (and from 40% if you use the formerly accepted date of 7 million years). This would imply that chimpanzees and bonobos were interfertile with Australopithecus africanus, and the we humans directly have chimpanzee / bonobo ancestry in addition to "Lucy". A quite remarkable finding. Keep up the good work. You might want to search for some of these papers in PubMed, and read them, and also mention this in this article. This isn't at all the Multiregional Hypothesis, just a lack of a fully complete replacement after modern humans evolved recently in Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeogenetics (talk • contribs)

[edit] Michael Loren Mauldin

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Michael Loren Mauldin, by 66.82.9.105 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Michael Loren Mauldin fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Unremarkable Person, Recreation of deleted material (formerly under variations on the name Michael Mauldin, this version adds the middle name), reads like a Resume, Advertising.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Michael Loren Mauldin, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

Muntuwandi, I seen your message and if you'd like to make a merger, go ahead, I don't think anyone will object.. In the meantime, can you please, please keep an eye on that page (whenever you can, since I know you're busy).. There is a wikistalker now, going around merely trying to revert whatever I do or what ever sources reports on Egypt's Africanity. Namely the user Lanternix.. The evil greek guy is being unreasonable as well.. OMG, he did it again.. Can you please revert this guy when you get the chance?Taharqa 17:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind for now, the page is protected.. It would also be great if you can join the discussion as it seems people are taking liberty to make unsupported charges of "afrocentrism" in the article without specifying. Which is all too convenient for any biased ideologically-driven person to do and I'm tired of entertaining stuff like that..Taharqa 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Race and intelligence. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you wish to request review of this decision, you may place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Muntuwandi still does not understand WP:3RR or the very limited possible exceptions to it. We are not to undo the actions of other editors on any one article, in whole or in part, more than 3 times in 24 hours, nor are we to engage in a habit of reverting other editors on an article day after day, even if it is not more than 3 times per day. Restoring material and adding citations is still restoring it. Only blatant vandalism or WP:BLP violations might be an exception to the 3RR. The warning is evidence that at least in principle you are aware of the 3RR. Please avoid engaging in edit wars with other users and especially limit the number of times you will revert other editors in any day. To keep restoring (or deleting) the same material over and over again is just not how we would like to edit articles. It's better to work it out on the talk page. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fourdee

fourdee the user who on this occasion([3rr report]) nominated Muntuwandi for violating the 3RR rule, has been blocked indefinitely for racist and antisemitic edits[1][2][3][4][5], This comment [6] [7], [8] [9] . He was personally blocked by Jimbo Wales. Though this 3RR incident occurred some time ago, and same may say it is water under the bridge, I think it is still necessary to reflect on it.

Whenever there is a dispute between two parties admins will check the block log of both parties. If an editor has a number of blocks it is likely that the admins will perceive him or her to be trouble maker and be biased against him/her. However the blocks logs sometimes do not provide adequate context. On this particular occasion Muntuwandi maintains that Fourdee filed a 3rr report in bad faith. A 3rr report normally requires that a warning be sent to other party involved. So Fourdee dug up an ancient warning from an unrelated article and presented it in the report. Furthermore while his racist edits are recent news to many admins, it was of no surprise to those of us who have encountered this user frequently[10]. Maybe if the admin involved had known, he would have acted differently, I don't really know. But it is entirely possible.

Since this block Muntuwandi has encountered hostility from some admins. Muntuwandi had not encountered such hostility from admins prior to this block. I believe this block contributed to another subsequent block which was not for the 3RR but for gaming the system. Muntuwandi had reported a user for violating the 3RR but instead Muntuwandi was blocked for "gaming" and the user who violated the 3RR was not blocked. Muntuwandi believes that this was bias stemming from the earlier block.

However Muntuwandi feels partially vindicated, since Fourdee was blocked by Jimbo himself. Muntuwandi hopes that this has provided some context surrounding this block and admins and other editors may take this into consideration. Muntuwandi 19:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the article Race and Intelligence

If you're still actively editing, can you e-mail me here? Thanks!--Ramdrake 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White People Article

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as White People. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.36.79 (talk • contribs)

Are you Hayden/Nordic Crusader? Weird that you've both been blocked and now editing the same article again under New Zealand IPs, and accusing others of ownership. Also reverting other's edits. - Jeeny ^Talk01:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Most probably Hayden/Nordic Crusader. If he continues we will have to request semi-protection. Muntuwandi 01:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, about your editing on White people, you obviously have some passion and knowledge about that topic, so I want to ensure your passion is well-directed towards appropriate editing. First, two pillars of Wikipedia are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:No original research (OR). NPOV guides us to make sure all articles are neutrally written and worded, and without bias. This is not to say that we route out bias present in the discourse related to a topic or the scientific research about it. After all, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Instead, we should represent the scientific, political, anthropological, and social facts and discussions about "white people" as faithfully as possible. There is a significant body of scholarship indicating race is bunk and meaningless as a scientific concept or a firm category. At the same time, race has significant social and political consequences in many countries because people do categorize themselves and others by skin color and more complex markers of race. As to one issue, characterizing Barack Obama as white at the head of the article is pushing it [11], and doing so without any references is original research. I think we both know the reality is that Obama is multiracial, and not white as the term is widely understood.

A related issue is proper use of edit summaries. Edit summaries such as this and this are not acceptable because they are uncivil and the referenced behavior does not clearly constitute trolling. Please use neutral edit summaries. For those edits, an appropriate summary is "comment" or "comment in response to KarenAER", etc.--Chaser - T 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are automated edit summaries from the section head which was created by KarenAER , I recognize that I have a weakness for using edit summaries, many editors have already advised me. I'll try to remember. The addition of Barack Obama was by User:Godongwana and I had reverted an edit to this version, I have no opinion on the inclusion of barack obama's picture at this point. And I am not a sock of User:Godongwana, you can perform a checkuser to confirm, we were editing at the same time and I do not know his/her location. If we agree on a few edits it is coincidental. Muntuwandi 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, accusing someone of trolling in an edit summary is confrontational; better to avoid them altogether if that's what the automatic tools do. I'm not a checkuser, so I can't do that. It should be declined or checked within a few days. Do you know Godongwana in real life? Whoever he/she is, the editing suggests he's been around before.--Chaser - T 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The accuser was KarenAER. I do not know who Godongwana is. Muntuwandi 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my earlier misconception. I struck that paragraph above as I now understand what you were saying. I've also changed the section header on the article talk page.--Chaser - T 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

FYI, [12] KarenAER 22:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image for Hamitic Section

Would you make a collage for the citation I found for the Hamitic section on this edit?----^DarkTea 08:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

jeez, don't encourage him with those things --Cape Colony Kaffir 11:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pattern of original research, POV pushing and original research

Hello, your recent edits to have been identified as original research and reverted. Please do not add your personal opinion(s) or unverified claims to Wikipedia.

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
-- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously

About this set of additions [13]. How can you even begin to add a big section like that without any sourcing? Seriously, after all of the discussion about this type of editing and prior warnings... why aren't you taking feedback? The Behnam 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deliberately Introducing Incorrect Information

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to White People, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --देसीफ्राल 05:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I like your username. Just thought I let you know. Good day, Brusegadi 10:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP

Hi. I support the re-inclusion here [14]. Was this removed by oone of the regulars or just a random passerby? On its face it looks well referenced and reasonable. Want to chat before making it an issue at the talk page. --Kevin Murray 16:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think that I successfully reincluded the text deleted this morning in anotther place. I'm bummed about Jeeny and emailed her encouraging her to return. I'm shocked about Ramdrake -- I've been sparring with him for a year or more. Hang in there! I don't always agree with what you do or say, but you bring sme great energy and ideas. Good conversations will bring more unity than strife. Have a great weekend. --Kevin Murray 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

ISBNs and pages alone are not sufficient, and there is nowhere in the citation policy that says that it is. See WP:CITE#HOW for what is required. MSJapan 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be mindful of 3RR

I notice there seems to be a revert war at Negroid -- please be careful to avoid breaking WP:3RR or, better yet, make use of the dispute resolution process, instead of edit warring. Sending both of you an identical message. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He's constantly edit warring on these same topics and has been blocked already. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Please do not attack people, places, organizations, or communities, as you did in your recent edits. This is considered to be an act of vandalism, and further inappropriate editing will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Thank you.

Your edits and pattern of introducing uncited controversial material continue to be a problem. You have been warned repeatedly by many different people for your edits on a number of race-related articles. Specifically this edit[15] is a personal attack and is part of your pattern of behavior which at this point I think you know is not acceptable. Thanks. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:One drop rule.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:One drop rule.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. देसीफ्राल 05:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC) देसीफ्राल 05:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Light skin colors.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Light skin colors.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. देसीफ्राल 05:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC) देसीफ्राल 05:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

I'd appreciate you taking a deeper look at the hard work that has gone into balancing the gallery. I've been fair with you so please stop the rhetoric about unfair images. I think that you are continuing an old battle with the wrong person. I'm happy to work with you on this, but fanning the flames only disrupts the hard work to good purpose. --Kevin Murray 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have made an effort to balance the gallery. Naturally photogenic images are preferred but my concern is that a gallery may turn into an advertisement for beauty. In which case it would lose value in discussing the concept of race. Muntuwandi 06:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Help me with this, please. A problem which I've faced is finding images either on WP or which are otherwise verifiably from an ethnic group. The restictive nature of the WP photo policy makes it tough. I've got people complaining that we've got too many politicians, and cranks trying to post their favorite stars etc. You and D Bachman both make sense and I want to work together, but please don't get people riled up, just help me to find pictures that work, and let me post them so we don't get the anti MW backlash. Then help me fight the vandals and cranks. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray 06:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carey collage at WP

MW, I could supprt this modified display. The inclusion of Jolie is unexplained and her facial features have been altered by surgery, so the implied point is invalid. As a minor nit on the logic, Carey self-identifies as Black, but I can pass on that nuance.

[edit] Photos at WP

Should the mixed race embrace be larger than the other photos or be a thumbnail? --Kevin Murray 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] images for deletion

If your white people/one drop images do get deleted, perhaps you can build a table with existing images? Just a thought --Knulclunk 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hours for gaming the 3RR on Religion. Please reach discussion on the talk page rather then revert warring. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reviewing admin please note the following recent edits to Religion by Muntuwandi:
• 17:09, 18 August 2007 [16]
• 01:19, 18 August 2007 Intermediate revision not counting
• 23:55, 17 August 2007 [17]
• 16:59, 17 August 2007 [18]
• 16:06, 17 August 2007 [19]

I make that 4 reverts in 25 hours - definitely gaming 3RR bearing in mind he was reporting another editor at AN3 at the same time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I had also extended an offer to MSJapan for discussing changes to the article01:06, 18 August 2007 .

MsJapan, you have reverted more than 3 times. I suggest you revert back and we can continue the discussion on the origin of religion. I am open to modification, but this is a valid subtopic. Religion did not just drop from the sky. It has its origins and some scientists have researched this area, on which I would like to make additions.

He did not take the offer, so I reported him for 3rr violation. After 24hrs elapsed I reverted. Yes I was looking at the clock because I did not want to get blocked. had someone warned me about gaming, maybe I wouldn't have, but gaming is subjective a warning would help. Ive never been blocked or warned about gaming. My first time to edit this article was 2 days ago. I am a controversial editor but I try my best to act in good faith. Muntuwandi 13:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Its assumed that anyone reporting another user at AN3 has actually read the policy and understands that they may also be liable for sanctions and that gaming the 3RR is also grounds for a block. This isn't your first block for revert warring and you have as much admitted that you use the AN3 report to gain advantage in a content dispute. I'm going to leave it to the reviewing admin to consider this but you must understand that if you carry on like this you will eventually lose your editing privileges permanently. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too early in the article for a clear pattern of gaming. My first time to edit the article was two days ago and I only made 4 edits. If you see the other articles I am editing such as white people or race and intelligence maybe a case for gaming could be made because I edit them a lot. I did a lot of research to find the information that I placed in the article, so to be treated as a vandal is disheartening. You can see from my contributions, I use the talk page quite a bit to try to build consensus edits. At least 25% of the time. Muntuwandi 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think you are showing favoritism to the other Editor. You offered to unblock him if he does not edit the religion article. How come no such offer was made to me, when he is the one who broke the 3RR rule and I did not break the 3RR rule.

This was your third 3RR violation so a long block is indicated but it has been some months since you were last blocked and I can see that you have attempted to reach an agreement on the article talk page. I have therefore settled on 48 hours. I am willing to unblock you if you undertake not to edit Religion until after your block was due to expire. If you agree to this please use the {{unblock}} template or leave a note under this.diff

Muntuwandi 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked for 3RR very recently and at least MSJapan was editing in accordance with the consensus on the talk page. I do not consider your violations equal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There were only two editors Me and MSJapan, at the time, so it is wrong to say that MSjapan was editing with consensus. Furthermore other editors supported my edits see comments. Muntuwandi 14:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: No editors actually editing at Religion supported your edits. Your link goes to hypothetical support of your side of the story by commentators at the incident noticeboard. Those reading this need to follow the link for themselves to see what I'm talking about. Do not be fooled by the editors misdirection. The edits at Religion were highly contentious and added a synthesis of theoretical information that simply doesn't belong in the entry in question.PelleSmith 12:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore MSJapan had issues with the way the information was cited, I used Amazon reader which allows readers to get excerpts from a book onlinebefore the Dawn. I used it because I thought it is much quicker to get quotes from a book than having to go to the library or book store to read the excerpts. He argued that I should use the standard citation method for books on wikipedia. So one of the reverts22:55, 17 August 2007is simply using the standard book citation that was requested by MSJapan. which was

"Wade, Nicholas - Before The Dawn, Discovering the lost history of our ancestors. Penguin Books, London, 2006. p. 8" Muntuwandi 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This user is in several simultaneous conflicts with a number of other editors and administrators for exhibiting the same behavior of re-inserting badly sourced POV material that nobody else wants in the articles. He has been blocked already for it, been warned that any edit warring can lead to block, etc. and is now trying to get other users blocked whom he has essentially baited into it by his persistent near-vandalism. If it were one article this might be called a misunderstanding or a content dispute. It's all across wikipedia - this is disruption not just a 3RR violation. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 13:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And I will certify that the above by User:Fourdee is a persistent misrepresentation of the facts and should be ignored.--Ramdrake 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] absurd block

MSJapan the user who consciously and knowingly broke the 3RR rule is given a pat on the back. And the user who did not break the rule is treated as a vandal. When he broke the 3rr rule I could have followed my instincts and edit warred but I exercised restraint. I did not rush to report him, because i wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and made him an offer to revert so that we could continue the discussion and reach a compromise. He did not accept this offer so I reported him. When my time limit expired there was still no action from the admins on MSJapan. 14 hours after reporting him I reverted. Had he/she taken the opportunity I would have even requested he/she not be blocked. I don't take pleasure in having editors who I have just encountered blocked. Muntuwandi 15:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal Case

Hello, you have been listed as a potential participant in an informal mediation regarding a dispute over White people. The case page is listed at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19_White_people. I am looking over the case, and am willing to offer my assistance in this. If you are willing to participate in the mediation and willing to accept my offer to mediate, please let me know. Thank you, Neranei (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if the other parties are willing. Muntuwandi 03:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just been reading what is on the Talk:White people. Though User:Jeeny and I have been blocked, the mean spiritedness of some of the editors continues. In fact those are some of the nastiest things I have read from established editors(ie non-IP vandals). Isn't it ironic Muntuwandi 03:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the other parties have accepted, none have refused, so we are getting somewhere. Jeeny is unblocked, I think, but you won't be unblocked for awhile. That may delay things. By the way, I am a new mediator, so please be patient with me. Thank you. Neranei (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

I see that you are very much involved in editing very 'hard to edit' articles. Concerning race and intelligence; A book by Jared Diamond titled Guns Germs, and Steel attempts to explain differences in living standards across the world using what some may call "environmental determinism". It is a good read. I recommend the version that has the 2003 foreword. It may also serve you well in providing sources since I am willing to bet that he has a good stack of references. I will try to become involved in that article to make it less POV, but as of now I have my hands full in the real world. Good luck and happy editing, Brusegadi 06:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Mariah.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mariah.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 17Drew 03:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ancient egypt

The Egypt and race page is back up, and I've tried to begin the process of merging it now.. See what you think and of course try and watch it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_ancient_EgyptTaharqa 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on edit summaries

Please use edit summaries. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phral AN/I thing

Hello, would you prefer to email me about the AN/I issue, or to discuss it on our respective talk pages? Neranei (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind using the talk page. Muntuwandi 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you do realize that the discussion will not be private then. Neranei (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I make little secret of my opinions, necessary for part of my sanity. If there is anything private, I will email you Muntuwandi 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's continue our discussion. What were you saying? Neranei (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

One of my concerns with mediation is that the other editors, Fourdee and Phral, do not make any substantive contributions to the articles. I do not recall any one of them adding a information from a peer reviewed publication to the article. They mostly use the talk page as vehicle to express their personal opinions. Fourdee has even gone as far as admitting that he is racist. He is entitled to his own views but that doesn't help the article if he does not provide any information. While some of my edits are controversial, they are still sourced from what i believe to be reliable sources such as peer reviewed journals etc. Muntuwandi 02:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have valid concerns, as do they, and if you have not already made a statement at the talk page, please do so, so that your opinion can be expressed. Neranei (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a statement on the talk page as well. Muntuwandi 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you for your statement. Neranei (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that Phral has been blocked. Neranei (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Muntuwandi. I must say that I don't always agree with your edits, especially to the Race and genetics article, but I very much appreciate your involvement in Wikipedia, I think you are a very great asset. I am sorry there is an editor who is hounding you. As for Phrallus Secundus, I kept spelling it this way and kept getting red links and I couldn't understand why. Made me smile when I realised. Alun 11:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the same mistake as wellMuntuwandi 04:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race and ancient Egypt (controversies)

Muntuwandi, we need your presence to the article Race and ancient Egypt (controversies). Zerida and Egyegy have proposals for its improvement. I hope they will agree to debate them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ancient_Egypt_%28controversies%29 . Meanwhile somebody has created a second article from the content of the first one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ancient_Egyptians--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 12:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trolls

Hey, I hope that my comment about ignoring trolls did not come across to you as dismissive of the pain or anger they can cause. I am well aware of it - if you care to look here (if the reference is oblique to you, go to The Eternal Jew). My comment on this particular troll and trolls in general was intended solely to be constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Guess who Godongwana really was? Phral/Hayden/Nordic Crusader. Checkuser has connected the accounts, so don't let anyone bother you about him again; he was just flying a false flag and trying to make you look bad by taking your side. Picaroon (t) 07:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow thats interesting. Muntuwandi 12:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your approach to editing Wikipedia

Muntuwandi, your behaviour is not acceptable. You have made it a habit to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. this move and your edits to European people are just recent examples. Please reconsider. As it is, you are simply wasting your own time and that of others. --dab (𒁳) 07:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

not exactly, when I added European people, who were of color, they were rejected as not european. What that means is that this article is only referring to indigenous Europeans. So I made the change. If the article is to remain as European people, then it should include citizens of european countries regardless of their appearance. To not do so is to go against conventions. When I watch the UEFA European Football Championship, this tournament is only open to European people. I see people of a variety of shades. The UEFA European Football Championship does not say that you have to white to participate in it. Muntuwandi 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but citizenship requirements vary - if you can get a passport from X country, you can play for them. As an example, there are a number of players "of German extraction" on the German team with Latino last names who are children or grandchildren of German citizens (largely from Argentina), but had not set foot in Germany until signing a contract to play football. Germany also has some very weird regulations regarding who is a "foreigner" and who isn't. Again, you're removing things from context so they fit what you wish to say. MSJapan 03:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negroid

Just a note — perhaps you should engage in some discussion on this article's talk page with the other editors before you start edit warring over this picture again? Just a thought. --Haemo 05:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race and genetics

Hi, just wanted to point out that there is no point in having this edit war with MoritzB on this issee. You are not actually contradicting each other. All populations outside of Africa are more closely related to each other than they are to to Africans under ROA, the African populations they are most closely related to are East African populations. On the other hand it is perfectly acceptable to say that of the out of Africa groups, Europeans may well be the closest to Africans. These are no incompatible concepts. Alun 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikibreak

I am taking a few days off. But don't get to comfortable I'll be back with my "agendas". Feel free to leave a message, if there is anything requiring my attention. Muntuwandi 13:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negroid

Regarding above-mentioned article: Reply will be posted on my talkpage. As the archive-bot archives sections if there is no traffic in three days, you may wish to read the reply before then. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Kylu, don't be too sensitive, nothing personal is meant but as an admin you should be aware that many of the disputes are quite heated. Muntuwandi 00:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You protected this article before and the person who protected this time did it based on your advice(see above). This admin has since disappeared. (you to Haemo, see Talk:Negroid). I haven't protected the page on Haemo's advice, I protected it because people are warring over the content of the article. I also second his initial message of why the page was protected and what it means. I haven't vanished, either: You're confusing administrators with a dispute resolution process. We're not. Yes, some admins are members of dispute resolution processes, as are more non-admins. Quite frankly, I think you have a fundamentally flawed view of the purpose of admins on Wikipedia. In that, I agree with Haemo. I can suggest some pages on Wikipedia that do a very good job of explaining the various community roles, if you'd like. G'day. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

However it does seem that your protection has caused more problems than it is solving and more mudslinging, the discussions have been deteriorating, and the server volumes that you so feared are right up there with edit after edit on the talk page. As far as I know, admins are the next step above regular users in at least trying to keep wikipedia in order. only after 3 reverts was the article protected. I think this was too short a time and no chance was given to see whether things could settle down. I did feel a disconnect because usually when an admin protects a page they do at least monitor the discussion, chiming in every now and then, this really helps because important in any dispute is that both parties believe that there is at least someone neutral. This helps to cool things down. At present there is nobody neutral, just two polarised camps. Whatever I say, no matter how credible none of the other side will believe. Muntuwandi 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, the admin-of-record for the protection is now MZMcBride (see page history). I've read the dispute, and at least one person disagrees with the counting of consensus there. I'm no longer "required" to be involved at all, even as far as telling you (again) how to get your issue resolved. I'd really, really, as one-editor-to-another, however, suggest you go visit WP:RFC and get some outside opinions on the matter. I was trying to stay uninvolved, that way there'd be no illusion of bias, but I think those involved were trying to establish such a bias by any means available. Good luck on your article. I'm no longer watching the article or any talkpages of its editors. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Negroid

I didn't want this to get mixed in with the previous, long section, even though we are all talking (ranting, shouting) about the same article. It is a mess, isn't it? I would like to think about it after I have had some food and sleep. It would appear that, to do it right, all the controversies should be dealt with, but I don't know that either of us (I am just shy of 60) has enough years left in which to get this through to a consensus. I like the fact that you are not limiting your examples or explanations to me to the U.S. The article could be much stronger for a world view. I wish I had the professional background to rout out the sources. Thanks for answering my questions. If I come up with something useful, I will be back in touch. Those 1914 photos were of no use without a lot more explanation than they deserved. Bielle 02:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sneaky people

This page[20], of course needs to be deleted ASAP since it violates WP:CFORK.. Someone actually set up a separate article so that they may pov-push what they felt. This is getting ridiculous. And do you have any idea how user Dbachmann made edits to the ancient egypt and race page, seeing as how it's protected?Taharqa 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, is there any way to redirect it right now, or will it not work since one of the pages are protected? I see no reason why they wouldn't delete it, at least they should redirect it like you said.Taharqa 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI there is a rfc about this user for this article now. futurebird (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Changing Funkynusayri's comments to refer to you by your actual username is appropriate, but censoring him like this is not. Please don't do that again. Picaroon (t) 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See, however, the note in italics which states that the practice of replacing offensive words with alternatives is controversial, even if it is allowed. If he uses the word gratuitously or so as to offend you, tell me, but his current comments on Talk:Negroid do not appear to fit that description. Picaroon (t) 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mutuwandu. For the article "Genetic History of Europe" an image of the distribution of E-M81 would probably be more appropriate. Could you please upload it on the article?

Thanks! --Burgas00 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayr and Race

MoritzB is correct that Mayr argues for the existence of "races." I suspect MoritzB's mistake is to think that "race" always means the same thing, so if Coon, Mayr, and Agassiz 9and MoritzB) use the word race they are all agreeing. They way I read Mayr, his is using the word "race" to refer to a very specific kind of population, and this usage has nothing in common with pre-population genetics/pre-Mendelian notions of race. I tried to introduce Mayr into the article in a way that makes this clear. Regardless of my personal opinions, I think the key battle here is to make it clear that when populaton geneticists (whterh Dobzhansky or Mayr) use the word race, they just do not mean what most people mean by the word. I think that this needs to be accomplished not specifically where we mention Mayr or Dobzhansky but th section as a whole - population genetics destroyes prior notions of race, and those population geneticists who continue to use the word "race" are actually using a different concept of race than what existed previously - or than what circulates popularly. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race

Please consider my comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

Be on the look out for the persistent pov-pushers on wiki. It truly seems that this place is a haven for racist pov-pushing trolls, but what else do you expect from a public encyclopedia? This is in specific reference to Dbachmann, who has been crazing over the Egyptian thing for a while, imposing his pov. Even showing up at the "black people" article and distorting cited information, only to be reverted (by you) and backed up by another user named Paul Barlow or something (who I reverted). They don't even have reasons to revert, they merely do it because they have nothing to counter with, lol. I have no idea why there isn't a violation covering the blanking of cited material with out an alternative or critique of the said sources. It is disgusting. I know that you're always on your toes, but just giving you a heads up anyways.Taharqa 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I was quiet indeed...

PC was in the repair shop. All better now. Thanks for asking.--Ramdrake 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Genetic heterogeneity, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.medicalglossary.org/variation_genetics_genetic_heterogeneity_definitions.html. As a copyright violation, Genetic heterogeneity appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Genetic heterogeneity has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Genetic heterogeneity and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Genetic heterogeneity with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Genetic heterogeneity.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Whpq 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

There is a huge debate going on concerning the future of the NOR policy Wikipedia talk:No original research. I think you understand what is at stake, and hope you will participate. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Mbanza congo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Mbanza congo.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This image is worth keeping. Please let us know the image source. Was it from a website or a book? For now, I've removed the tag, but some source information will be needed sooner rather than later. Thanks. Carcharoth 21:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, thanks for the way you are arguing in the article "Race and ancient Egypt". It is clear that you know what it is about. Now I found this problem about the picture of Mbanza Congo. First I would like to tell you that I am a Mukongo of D. R. Congo! The picture you talking about was made by De Bry and found in the book of Filippo Pigafetta, Regnum Congo hoc est Vera Descriptio, 1598. Raphaël Batsikama reprinted it in his book Voici les Jagas 1971, p. 19. It can also be found in the new edition of the book by Batsikama with the new title L'ancien Royaume du Congo et les Bakongo. Ndona Béatrice & Voici les Jagas, 1999, p. 19.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 20:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, the book of Batsikama just says "Les Portugais rendant hommage au roi du Congo", meaning "Portugueses pay respects to the king of Congo". According to Aboubacry Moussa Lam, Mani or Mwene derives from the name Mni of the first king of Egypt, making the king of Congo one of their heirs! (Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire: "Ki-Zerbo donne l'exemple des enseignes du Mani-Kongo; ici, en plus des enseignes, c'est évidemment le titre même qui frappe: il évoque le nom du pharaon ayant, d'après la tradition égyptienne, unifié l'Egypte", p. 30, note 56; "Changeons de domaine et intéressons-nous à la royauté: c'est le nom du pharaon unificateur de l'Egypte, Mni (ou Ménès des sources grecques) qui sert de titre à beaucoup de rois africains de la période précoloniale. Il s'agit de Manna au Tekruur et au Ghana, de Mwene/Mwana au Zimbabwe et de Mani au Congo. Dans ce dernier royaume, le Mani-Congo ne s'est pas contenté de garder le nom de son illustre homologue qui aurait régné vers 3185 avant J.C., il a aussi conservé ses enseignes militaires", p. 65. See also pages 122, 123, 125. Myself, I have been able to demonstrate in article published in Congo that the word Congo derives from the Egyptian Kmt (k-ng/ k-m). In kikongo, lakama means to darken. And akana is suffixe which gives to a word the meaning of being black. Kongolo means black, dark. Congo (or Kongo) like Kmt is a name of a country, of the inhabitants. It uses also, like in Egyptian to mean a jar, to finish, to accomplish, a multitude...! So Mwene Congo or Mani Congo will mean something like "Lord of Egypt". Thus, the kingdom of Congo, like many other African kingdoms, is a neo-pharaonic kingdom. Egypt is black african or does not exist. Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black people content dispute

I am given Zerida and Taharqa a maximum of 2 weeks to settle their dispute up, but I hope that this will only last a couple of days although judging by the talk page of the article, that doesn't seem to be close for a consensus. I will send them a message in 2-3 days to ask them If they have settled things up or at least progressed. If they do not give any answers to my talk page/or not continuing the debate on the article's talk page 24 hours after I send the message, I will unprotect the page.--JForget 02:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I send both of them a notification about that, and if nothing is added to the discussion, I will un-protect the article even though I gave them a maximum of 2 weeks to settle the issue.--JForget 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black American vs African American

Thanks for the welcome on my talk page. I agree that for the most part, African American and Black American have equivalent meanings. But a famous scholar once wrote that there's no such thing as a true synonym in the english language, that is, no matter how similar two words appear to be, there's always a subtle distinction that inevitabley emerges. In the case of black American vs African American, the subtle distinction I've noticed is that American Afro-multiracials who are not considered black, are still always considered African American. Of course this trend is so incipient that it's hard to prove, but I find the distinction fascinating because it allows Afro-multiracials to assert a multiracial identity instead of being pigeon-holed as black, while still embracing their African diasporas ancestry. I'm surprised that an editor as open minded as you would wish to completely deprive our readers the chance of considering this school of thought, especially when it's cited. Iseebias 06:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Afro diversity.jpg source and license

Can you provide a source and license for the top left image of Image:Afro diversity.jpg. Thanks. Also given that the images are Creative Commons 2.0, shouldn't the montage also be using version 2.0 rather than version 2.5 of the license? Keep up the good work, Thanks. Edward 10:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bakongo and Black America

Muntuwandi, according to this book Flash of the Spirit: African and Afro-American Art and Philosophy written by Robert Farris Thompson, the Bakongo presence in America is a reality. Please, try to read it. Myself, I am using the French version of the book. Interesting!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Maiherperi2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Maiherperi2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lovings photo

Hi. I just saw the image that you uploaded of Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving. It looks to me like it might be a cropped low resolution version of the following photo. [21] I think that this one is also non-free, but presumably any fair-use rational that applis to the low resolution image would also apply to this one. --Ramsey2006 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Origin of religion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Origin of religion, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion. Thank you. Vassyana 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags (response)

The reference issue is a very small problem, the bigger problems are with the synthesis of original research that isn't notable. Why did you remove those tags?PelleSmith 23:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: On the deletion page, please remove your initial comment and add it back on where you vote keep. You shouldn't have two threads on there like that. Thanks.PelleSmith 23:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There no regulations about where you place your comments, since i have signed my name. AFD are not based only on votes by the way. If the article meets wikipedia standards, then that may take precedence. Muntuwandi 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not a matter of regulations, its just a matter of aesthetics. It gets confusing if you post like that, that's all. Alot of times people will refactor the pages to get rid of things like that but I thought of asking you first.PelleSmith 23:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing

Please be aware of the fact that soliciting input from specific groups of editors at the AfD of your entry could be construed as Wikipedia:Canvassing. BTW did you ever attempt to add this information to Development of religion before you tried re-adding it to Religion and/or creating the entry Origin of religion?PelleSmith 04:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I new you were going to point the finger right back at me. Now I simply suggested that it could be construed as and not that it definitely was canvassing. That said bringing a new religion related entry to the attention of WikiProject Religion is clearly not canvassing. Cheers.PelleSmith 05:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please work with other editors

Muntuwandi,

Please do not keep on adding the contentious material to Religion when there is no consensus to do so. Such behavior is not productive, but in fact an example of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. See the third definition there: "Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators." Also why not entertain the repeated suggestion to first try to work with Prehistoric religion and Development of religion?PelleSmith 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Those articles actually deal with the more intricate details of religion, such as religious practices, and the various gods. My main interest is putting a date on religion. Current evidence suggests by 50,000 years ago religion reached its modern form. As I always say , religion didn't drop from the sky 3000 years ago. It has its roots much earlier. My intentions are just to add relevant material with those theories that various reliable scholars have put forth. Inevitable such studies are becoming more frequent, it is unsettling to many who are used to traditional studies on religion, but eventually this is where we are heading regarding religious studies. Muntuwandi 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Mithen

Muntuwandi,

I noticed you just created the entry Steven Mithen minutes before using Mithen as a reference on Origin of religion. Dr. Mithen may or may not be a notable archaeologist, though nothing about the entry you have created yet suggests any particular notability. Of course the issue of notability should be judged in an objective fashion, and not based upon your motives. That said, it is highly counterproductive to create entries in this fashion, just to help prove a point that the community at large doesn't agree with you about. You need to take a deep breath and think about how to best work within policy, and with other editors. When a host of other editors don't agree with something you are trying to do there is a chance that they are right and you are wrong. There are also opportunities to reach acceptable solutions, and in this case those opportunities have been suggested repeatedly, but it seems you are hell bent instead of working with those suggestions to simply continue trying to have it your way. If you don't take a step back someone is inevitably going to get fed up and ask for administrative involvement. This wouldn't be out of line either since you are now editing disruptively. Work with us. Please. Thanks.PelleSmith 13:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Steven Mithen

An article that you have been involved in editing, Steven Mithen, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Mithen. Thank you. MSJapan 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albinism

"person with albinism" "congenital disorder" "albinistic" "albinoid" "albinic" ...derogatory ways towards people, because, albinos are not diseased is not a disorder

"ocular albinism" is not albinism

excuse me, I don't speak english

Un equipo del CSIC halla la sustancia que corrige los defectos visuales de los albinos en la fase embrionaria Los investigadores descartan así la teoría que relacionaba la falta de melanina y los problemas de visión

translation:

An equipment of the CSIC finds the substance that corrects the visual defects of the albinos in the embryonic phase The investigators discard therefore the theory that related the lack of melanina and the problems of vision

Oxford Dictionary albino |alˈbīnō| noun ( pl. -nos) a person or animal having a congenital absence of pigment in the skin and hair (which are white) and the eyes (which are typically pink). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.77.181 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of religion DRV

It's true that that's what the tag says, but it is still inappropriate to recreate the article while the DRV is underway. You should have requested that the history be restored behind a {{drv}} tag instead; unless the DRV concludes otherwise, recreations are still subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4. The current solution is sort of equivalent to restoring behind a tag since you recreated the article. --Coredesat 05:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the rest. It's still hidden behind the tag and the page protected. --Coredesat 05:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chimp-vocal-tract.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chimp-vocal-tract.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Just a warning, you have three reverts in 24 hours, and another one will pass the limit. The addition you have added has no consensus with the editors. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Hills High School

Hi, your delete comment was spot on at the time that you made it. However, I have rewritten the article, removed stuff like lists of subjects and added third party sources. Perhaps you would revisit your view, please? TerriersFan 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yo

Brodie.. Shoot me your e-mail if you don't mind, I wanted to hit you up about something.. thanx.Taharqa 04:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your recent behaviour

Muntuwandi, I must warn you that if you continue to refuse to collaborate, ignore deletion debate outcomes, and recreate your rejected content at randomly selected titles, you may face sanctions. Some of your material is perfectly valid, but you are required to collaborate with people, and insert it within reason in articles that address the topic, such as Development_of_religion#Origin_of_religion, anthropology of religion or prehistoric religion. I would be glad to help you shape your content into something acceptable. Just ignoring everyone qualifies as disruption, and after so many warnings and debates, as blatant trolling. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Talk:Development_of_religion#human_evolution_and_religion. dab (𒁳) 13:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race of ancient Egyptians

You need to stop edit warring on the Race of ancient Egyptians page. Regardless of the justification of your edits, edit warring won't accomplish anything. If your edits are truly justified and those you are reverting violate guidelines or policy, then Start a RFC on the users adding them, Add a notice to the admin notice board asking for help, etc. These are the methods for resolving these sorts of disputes, not simply reverting over and over. If the edit warring continues I'll be forced to request that the entire page be sanctioned a 1 revert per week rule with the exception of obvious vandalism or self reverts. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that you may find this interesting. Of course we're all familiar with Diop's melanin tests, but here's more recent confirmation.

Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2

Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13

"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)...... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin." -- Biotech Histochem. 2005 Jan-Feb;80(1):7-13

Taharqa (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R&I – a new approach

R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I blocked User:Funkynusayri for 1 week following your request at WP:3RR. However, upon closer inspection I see that you have also previously been blocked twice for 3RR violations. Today you reverted 3 times on Negroid. You are presumably well aware of the 3RR guidelines by now and so will know that you can be blocked for edit warring without actually performing more than 3 blocks in 24 hours. In this case I consider that you have attempted to game the system by reverting exactly 3 times, so I have blocked you for a week also. TigerShark 23:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albino people

Oxford American Dictionary albino: noun ( pl. -nos) a person or animal having a congenital absence of pigment in the skin and hair (which are white) and the eyes.

To be albino is not a disease, disorder or anomaly. To be albino is absolutely natural, like to be black or white.

Albinos are albinos, not "albinistic" or "person with albinism". In the same way, blacks are blacks, not "blackistic", "niggeristic" or "person with melanism".

You remember when they said (pseudoscience) that "black people" are animals without soul? or that the homosexuals are ill vicious people? In the same way, old superstitions against albinos said that the albinos are "ill mental",deformed monsters or aberrations of the nature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.77.181 (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Thanks for your email. I am currently discussing it with the other admin involved and will get back to you ASAP. Thanks again TigerShark 22:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Wendorf

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fred Wendorf, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Doc^g 13:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please note that a false report of 3RR violation has been filed on you at WP:3RR. I have taken the time to put in a comment that the person reporting the violation was actually the violator. I suspect Jeeny to be correct in assuming this is yet another sock of Hayden what's-his-number. :) Please be aware.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it's Hayden, he just posted on my user page with the same plea to work with him. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, hes back and looking for attention. Muntuwandi (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey :)

Hi. I noticed ur comments on Taharqa's page. He's a good friend of mine via wiki and we try to help each other as much as we can. Obviously, any friend of T is a friend of mine. Thnx for being involved in the History of Africa page, btw. I'm constantly running around working on African Empires and kingdoms (check out the Kingdom of Nri page I recently authored) and never got a chance to take a look at the History of Africa article. As you can see by my discussion with T, i'm having trouble finding an accepted periodization for the motherland. Which brings me to the following

"Prehistoric means before the period the scripts. By 3000 BC, there were already scripts in Kush and Kemet! Maybe better speak of Before Iron Age, Iron Age, etc. Besides, in their book, African Intellectual Heritage, Molefi Kete Asante and Abu S. Abarry of Temple University have a very interesting periodization of African History. They call it An African Chronology."

I myself am pretty uncomfortible with the "Prehistoric" title myself. Kemet and Kush could hardly be called Prehistoric societies in their development. I honestly just didn't know what else to go on. I modeled the African prehistory period on that of European one which extends well into the age of scripts. Speaking of scripts, what were the scripts used in Kemet? I was only aware of hieroglyphs. Not sure if those actually count. And Meroe-style script doesn't appear into well into the iron age (8th century AD at earliers)

I checked out the site u were talking about and the book looks interesting. i didn't see anything detailing the African chronology. Could u fill me in? i personally agree with you that a period should exist between pre-history and iron age , but I don't wanna just make one up without being backed by some published source. Can't wait to hear back from u. :) Scott Free (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] origin of religion

please try to behave. Whatever you are trying to do, the place to discuss it is Talk:Development of religion. Going berserk and strewing your copy-paste forks all over article namespace will only get you banned for disruption. Make a reasonable and coherent proposal on the talkpage linked, and I am sure you will be able to contribute constructively. dab (𒁳) 11:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to comment? This case is still open. futurebird (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Valtorta cave painting.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Valtorta cave painting.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Request made on WikiAnthropology page

I've posted a response to a recent request you've made here. I hope you find this is useful? Bruceanthro (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race

FYI [22]. If you agree with what I did, I could use your help in ensuring that any material recently added to the "spin-of" or sub-pages, that complies with V, NPOV, and NOR, be added to the main article. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your name has been mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN/I

Hello Muntuwandi. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Muntuwandi and the Origin of Religion. You are welcome to join the discussion and add your own comments there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your latest content fork (Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion and Evolutionary theories on the origins of religion) have been deleted (under WP:CSD#G4) as recreations of the deleted Origin of religion. You have been warned a number of times already that continuing to act against consensus, edit war, ignore AFD discussions and continue to try and create content forks will result in your facing various sanctions which may include blocking. I strongly urge you to stop, and instead engage in productive discussion at Development of religion, which is the most appropriate place for the content you continually try and add. You have been asked to do this a number of times alread - this may be the last time you are asked. Neıl ☎ 15:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion, again. Please do not recreate deleted material. Continuing to do so could lead to a loss of editing privileges. Pastordavid (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this comment on my talk page: you could not have me more wrong as I believe that there is no conflict between faith and evolution. Regardless, that is a red herring, as I have made no comments (nor do I really intend to) about the content dispute in question. Indeed, my own particular opinions have no bearing whatsoever on the fact that WP:AN/I is not the place for a content dispute, or on the fact that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion developed a consensus about the article Origin of religion - which are the only to comments I have made in the matter. You may indeed, in your bucking of consensus, be in possession of The TRUTH, yet consensus is the only way that wikipedia works. Pastordavid (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block

I have never had any sort of contact with you, but I have seen your name pop up now and again on the administrative noticeboards not in positive lights. You have recreated an article detailing the evolution of religious beliefs more than three times despite being told to cease these activities on multiple occasions. Until you realize what Wikipedia's rules dictate in these situations, you have been indefinitely blocked for disrupting Wikipedia by repeatedly posting content that had been deleted. There are other methods to get articles included, and you must realize what those are if you wish to be unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Per your e-mail, I responded in this case as an uninvolved administrator. I can see you were warned by other administrators and ignored their warnings. Because I am not involved in the case does not mean I should not have blocked you. It is in fact better that I was the one to block you, as I had no prior contact with you. You may appeal the block here, such that your comments will be seen by those viewing the thread WP:ANI#Block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been editing on wikipedia for 2.5 years now(My first edit June 2005). I think I have been around long enough, I hope this counts for something. Muntuwandi (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time at this moment (busy season for me and all), but I was asked to come here and comment. Muntuwandi, I don't know that I would say that you were, in fact, editing in good faith. You have said, on multiple occassions, that you simply don't care what consensus is - that your opinion is more important (mroe truthful, factual, take your pick) than consensus. Yes, this is a content dispute - and you have repeatedly thumbed your nose on the processes that are in place to help develop consensus and work through content disputes, and that -- not the content -- is and has been the real issue through all of this. You have been warned, repeatedly, that doing so could result in blocking. No, the unblocking process is not rubber-stamping. I may not have blocked you myself - despite seeing that you continued to recreate the deleted material - however, for the time being I support Ryulong's block as I have seen no evidence that you intend to change your disruptive behavior. Should you decide that you are willing to edit constructively, follow consensus, and play nice with others, that would be a different situation. Pastordavid (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have urged Ryulong to unblock you - it's bad form for me to unblock you without discussion with the blocking admin, although I am tempted to - I don't think blocking you will help things. I hope you realise, now, that your actions have been tendentious and could be considered disruptive. Please work with other editors, rather than creating your own versions of articles, particularly when those have already been deleted through community consensus. Neıl ☎ 10:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't unblock you but did cut the lenght of the block to one month, now we need a compromise that you will be able to control your behavior in the future. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus can change

Here is an excerpt from WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CCC

Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group making a decision does so on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. If the community disagrees, the decision was badly founded, or views change, then the updated consensus replaces the old one.

A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. An editor who thinks there are good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated may discuss it on the relevant talk page, through a Request for Comment, or at the Village Pump or Third Opinion to see what points other editors think are important, and to compare and examine the different viewpoints and reasons.

This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent. A precedent usually has reasons too, which may still be valid. There is a distinction between unresolved good-faith concerns over a reasonable or policy related matter, and disruptively trying to enforce an individual view. An issue decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information or a question of policy being breached.

Wikipedia's decisions are ever-changing, because new people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we did not have previously. It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, however these decisions were reached. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back. Some decisions have been made by a large number of editors. For example, the three-revert rule would need a great number of the Wikipedia community to participate in a discussion to determine if consensus for the rule has changed. A less widespread discussion, such as discussion on the policy talk page might be enough to establish a change of consensus on a detail of the policy or other minor improvement.

[edit] Is AFD immutable

According to the above statement wikipedia distinguishes between short and long term consensus. A consensus can be formed even if only two editors make a decision. However this is just a short-term consensus. A long term consensus usually requires the efforts of several committed editors over a sustained period. The AFD procedure does in some ways constitute a short term consensus. Most editors get drawn to the log page from other articles. When they see the list such as atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 22 they may decide to vote on other articles they find and move on. The only problem is that editors may just take a glance and make an instanteneous decision in a topic they only have marginal interest in. Some editors provide no explanation for their decision and simply state "Delete per nom". This is not ideal because in this particular case, some of the sources cited are 300 page books. As evidence of this short term consensusUser:Dbachmann made these comments

one month later... isn't if funny how as soon as the controversy dies down, everyone immediately loses interest in the unspectacular task of actually writing the article.

With the exception of PelleSmith, Dbachmann and MW, none of the editors who paricipated in the AFD has made any comments on the talk page at Talk:Development of religion

As per WP:CCC, it is perfectly legitimate to challenge a previous AFD.

[edit] Is Muntuwandi acting unilaterally

[edit] Some comments from Dbachmann

"ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics:

• 1. origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
• 2. the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
• 3. the teleological view (revelation)

the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts?

Dbachmann's comments

Muntuwandi, you need to understand that your content was deleted not because the topic is invalid, or because your individual references are bad, but because you insisted on coatracking about Out of Africa, paleolithic archaeology, human intelligence, behavioral modernity and evolution in general instead of addressing the actual topic

More Dbachmann comments

[edit] Comments from Anthropology project

MW makes an appeal to anthropology specialists We have an ongoing dispute about a number of theories proposed by evolutionary scientists regarding human evolution and the origins of religious behavior. The article,Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion is very much in its infancy and has attracted considerable controversy. I would welcome any expert input on this controversial subject. comments by Muntuwand

response from Bruceanthro

Myself, I feel it is a commendable and worthy object for an Wikipedia editor to seek to create and/or published archaeological research findings and conclusions regarding religions/evidence of religions found around the world. Perhaps rather than seeing Muntuwandi (talk efforts closed down, an article of the kind he has been initiating should be supported, and supplemented with balanced reporting on full range of speculation and theories in this field including evidence and speculation countering Muntuwandi (talk beliefs (in classic Karl Popper style!) .

[edit] Has MW tried to cooperate with PelleSmith

comments from PelleSmith, found on User_talk:PelleSmith#Answer

Of course you also refrain from even mentioning the three most notable contemporary theories of religious origin that utilize evolutionary mechanisms, and those are the ones by Lewis Wolpert, Pascal Boyer, and Richard Dawkins--a Google search will readily confirm their relative notability.

In response to PelleSmith's concern, MW created this section that utilizes studies by Pascal Boyer. User:Muntuwandi/The_evolutionary_origins_of_religion#Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion an excerpt

There is general agreement among cognitive scientists that religion is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved early in human history. However, there is disagreement on the exact mechanisms that drove the evolution of the religious mind. There are two schools of thought. One is that religion evolved due to natural selection, in which case religion conferred some sort of evolutionary advantage. Proponents of this hypothesis argue for a strong genetic component to religion and that these genes were subject to natural selection.

The other hypothesis posits that religion is an evolutionary byproduct, a neurological accident. Stephen Jay Gould was a proponent of this hypothesis. He believed that religion was an exaptation or a Spandral. That is religion evolved as byproduct of psychological mechanisms that were designed for other purposes

MW also created the article Evolutionary psychology of religion on the same day, which strangely enough has not also been deleted. If he was acting in bad faith, then it would make reasonable sense to delete the article as well.

Another request by PelleSmith that can be seen at User_talk:PelleSmith#Answer

Meanwhile the sources you reference tend to contain actual "theories of the origin of religion" that utilize evolutionary mechanisms in their explaining. Nothing regarding these theories makes it into the entry at all however. No mention of Barbara King's notion of "belongingness," nothing about Wade's use of Roy Rappaport and the relationship between religious truths, the evolution of language and the human capacity for lying, and so on.

In response PelleSmith's concerns MW created the section that deals with Barbara King's studies User:Muntuwandi/The_evolutionary_origins_of_religion#Primate_studies

Humans do share a common ancestor with the great apes such as chimpanzees and bonobos. This common ancestor lived over six million years ago. Hence some scholars view chimpanzees and bonobos as the best available surrogate for this common ancestor. Barbara King argues that while primates are not religious, they do exhibit some proto-religious traits. She argues that the complex social relations that the chimpanzees have would have served as basis for the later evolution of religion. For example , she notes an incident chimpanzees were observed exhibiting mournful behavior after a troupe member was killed by a leopard. King ascribes to the concept of continuity, that the difference between humans and apes is one of degree and not kind.[23] [24]

[edit] Has MW made any attempts at dispute resolution

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-17 Origin of religion

[edit] Is it okay to recreate deleted content

In the event that additional sources are found that proove notability, it is acceptable to recreate content as per wikipedia guideline Point number 5 states find more evidence to prove the notability of your article

[edit] AFD procedure

the decision was made that origin of religion was an innappropriate content fork of "development of religion" Sources cited can be viewed at User:Muntuwandi/The_evolutionary_origins_of_religion

• Donald. Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition, page 206. ISBN 0674644840.
• Buller, Edgar. Adapting Minds, page467-468. ISBN 0262025795.
• a b "Wade, Nicholas - Before The Dawn, Discovering the lost history of our ancestors. Penguin Books, London, 2006. p. 8 p. 165" ISBN 1594200793
• A scientific exploration of how we have come to believe in God
• Toward an evolutionary psychology of religion and personality
• The evolutionary psychology of religion Steven Pinker
• Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function Pascal Boyer
• Gods and Gorillas
• King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." ISBN 0385521553.
• Excerpted from Evolving God by Barbara J. King
• Human Uniqueness and Symbolization. "This 'coding of the non-visible' through abstract, symbolic thought, enabled also our early human ancestors to argue and hold beliefs in abstract terms. In fact, the concept of God itself follows from the ability to abstract and conceive of 'person'"
• [The Prehistory of the Mind The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science By Steven Mithen Reviewed by Andy Gorman]
• a b Lieberman (1991). Uniquely Human. ISBN 0674921836.
• The Neanderthal dead:exploring mortuary variability in Middle Palaeolithic Eurasia.
• a b Evolving in their graves: early burials hold clues to human origins - research of burial rituals of Neanderthals
• BBC article on the Neanderthals. "Neanderthals buried their dead, and one burial at Shanidar in Iraq was accompanied by grave goods in the form of plants. All of the plants are used in recent times for medicinal purposes, and it seems likely that the Neanderthals also used them in this way and buried them with their dead for the same reason. Grave goods are an archaeological marker of belief in an afterlife, so Neanderthals may well have had some form of religious belief."
• a b Uniquely Human page 163
• The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion
• An early case of color symbolism
• Ritual, Emotion, and Sacred Symbols: The Evolution of Religion as an Adaptive Complex
• (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05081-3.
• An overview of the patterns of behavioural change in Africa and Eurasia during the Middle and Late Pleistocene
• Uttal, William R. 2004. Dualism the original sin of cognitivism. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Page 77.
• Budge, Wallis. An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Literature, page 9. ISBN 0486295028.
• The beginning of religion at the begining of the Neolithic
• a b When Burial Begins
• Museum of Natural History article on human human evolution
• a b The beginning of religion at the beginning of the neolithic
• Hamer, Dean (2005). The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired Into Our Genes. Anchor Books. ISBN 0385720319.
• Hamer, Dean H. 2004. The God gene how faith is hardwired into our genes. New York: Doubleday. Pages 211-12.

MW wanted to find out why the AFD procedure decided that the content was a Content fork of development of religion. Even though wikipedia works on consensus, the consensus has to justify its decision and be accountable as well. Therefore MW would like to find out why the article was deemed a content fork, when none of the articles cited above that were used in the article uses the term "Development of religion".

[edit] Conclusion

It appears that MW has and continues to want to work with other editors. It is disturbing that the reference point in this debate has always been a 2 month old AFD. If a number of independent editors are willing to take a look at the article and critically analyse it, and inform what (aside from the fact that it was AFDed) is wrong with the article, I am sure he would be able to listen and if reasonable desist from recreating this article. For example User:Neil made these comments

The content is, at first glance, good, but it is pretty much identical to the recently deleted Origin of religion, so needs a considered approach..

What this possibly means is that there is nothing wrong with the content, the only problem is it was once deleted. If any editors are willing to take the time and at least for the moment discount or pretend that it was never deleted, and give an independent objective assessment of the article, MW is reasonable enough to listen. Systemicbias (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I have been directly involved in the dispute, and since I am being quoted above, I would like to comment that, yes, I believe Muntuwandi has behaved somewhat disruptively, and a brief block may well have been in order to impress on him certain "don'ts", but I would not have endorsed an extended block without further warning. I have created a separate origin of religion article now, strictly considered a WP:SS daughter article of development of religion, and I would welcome Muntuwandi's contributions, provided he doesn't again attempt to turn it into an offtopic discussion revolving around out-of-Africa and paleolithic burials. The bottom line is that I would endorse unblocking at this point: there can always be a renewed block if the disruptive pattern continues. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also perfectly willing to work with Muntuwandi if he is willing to work with other editors that don't share his exact vision--this has always been the problem in my eyes, that he is simply unwilling to work around community decisions and instead sets himself up against them. That said, I find the above presentation of evidence a bit disconcerting since it still says, "I've done nothing wrong ... its the world that's out to get me." What we are presented with are a series of arguments about why everyone else has been wrong. Meanwhile there hasn't been an ounce of self-reflexivity coming from MW during any of this and which is why we're still left with self-righteous rants instead of promises to behave. What I would like to see is, even if in his heart of hearts he holds onto the idea that he's completely right, what I would like to see is some expressed notion that the manner in which he has behaved, which has resulted in this block, is a manner in which he will try not to behave when he comes back. As I said I'm perfectly willing to work with him, but only if he changes his ways (and yes it would be a change) and comes back ready to work with others.PelleSmith (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

it is difficult to show contrition when you find yourself blocked: a certain amount of irritation should be generously discounted as normal human reaction. It is true that Mw's problem lies in his lack of collaboration. But he has contributed valuable material also. We need to find a way to tackle his problematic behaviour without discouraging him from contributing valid content. A short warning block might have served that purpose. I am afraid that a month's block will be more likely to either drive him away completely, or to trigger spite rather than insight. dab (𒁳) 11:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree; I would think something no more than a week would have sent the most appropriate message.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm feeling festive. Happy holidays, you are unblocked. I've seen enough to convince me there was no preventative aspect to keeping your account blocked at this time. Please stop recreating articles under different titles, though. It does not matter if you are right about the validity of the topic - there are established channels you may use to get deleted topics reinstated. In future, use them. If you ever have trouble, please let me know and I'll do my best to help. Best, Neıl ☎ 08:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Joseph and Luka Banda

An editor has nominated Joseph and Luka Banda, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Luka Banda and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please cooperate

Muntuwandi,

I know that you understand how inappropriate it is to completely rewrite an entry with and edit summary like this - "added refs." You have been asked to utilize the talk page to discuss your proposed changes as opposed to simply rewriting the entire entry without discussion. This is particularly important since it seems you are attempting to re-institute types of information (paleolithic burials, general discussions of primate behavior, etc.), and styles of presentation (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) that lead directly to the AfD of your original entry. In short, it seems to me that you are trying as hard as you can to re-write the original entry, instead of working with the current entry, and without attempting to explain on the talk page why specific changes are preferable. I have no patience for the type of editing I noted above, with deceptive edit summaries, but I am still willing to ask you once again to please work within the system instead of against it. Please start on the talk page. You really haven't discussed your desired changes there yet at all. Instead you've just complained about another entry (Development of religion) and one line in the lead about Near Eastern religions (which you are missreading). SO please come back to the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Origin of religion

Muntuwandi,

I reported you for 3RR on Origin of religion. Please see the relevant report.PelleSmith (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Run to the administrators, that is all you ever do. Never make any meaningful additions and just deliberately trying to frustrate me in creating a decent article. Your behavior has been unnecessary and has been responsible for all these unnecessary edit wars. Dbachmann's split personality has also been unhelpful too. I have had several disputes on wikipedia, but at least they have been content related and the people I have disputed have with have played fair in that they do not dispute reliably sourced information. You tried to prevent having an article Origin of religion, now we have one. Your hypocrisy is evident because you disputed this article from the get go. As long as it was me who was creating the article, you had a problem. When Dbachmann did the same thing as I did, you were silent. This shows your bias. You have some serious issues that's all I can say. Muntuwandi (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann did not do the same thing you did. Dbachmann created an entry that does not have the problems your entry did. You are now trying to reintroduce these problems into the entry he created. I'm getting really tired of explaining this. There is NO BIAS. Let me also remind you that you have refused despite my efforts to actually discuss the content on Talk:Origin of religion instead simply accusing me of having issues. I only "ran to the administrators" after months of frustration--and specifically because in your stubbornness you are refusing to respect basic policies. It is all documented in our edit histories. Don't worry, I think its relatively clear who has issues. I'm going to ask you once again to please use the talk page to discuss the rationale behind your changes instead of my behavior. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages are saturated with my discussions for all to see. Whether it be Talk:Origin of religion, Talk:Development of religion, or Talk:Prehistoric religion or Talk:Religion. It is you who does not listen, and it is you who is unwilling to cooperate. Muntuwandi (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing on those talk pages that explains the extent of your massive edit to Origin of religion. There certainly is no good faith effort on any of those pages to discuss it prior to changing the entire entry. When I started asking you to discuss it instead of simply reverting to your pet version you started commenting on my motives and behavior.PelleSmith (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted a comment making my suggestions to the talk pageTalk:Origin_of_religion#Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion in December indicating my concerns. Both you and Dbachmann conveniently ignored my suggestions and failed to comment or reply. It is only when I made the changes I suggested that is when you started to comment.In short, you have never been interested in discussion, its just a ploy or delaying tactic or avoidance. Quite frankly it is impossible for me to work with you, it has been a waste of time. I would be willing to work with Dbachmann but he has his own behavioral issues when it comes to working with other editors as indicated by the recent RFCs such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3. Muntuwandi (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With no comment whatsoever concerning the content of the article, it seems clear to me that you once again violated the three-revert rule, and, more importantly, are edit warring. I've blocked you for a fortnight. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Another day and another block over what shouldn't be a controversial article the origin of religion. The dispute continues unnecessarily, albeit while undergoing a temporary forced break, only to resume in the next fortnight or so. These problems occur when a dispute involves only three people. Dbachmann and PelleSmith have successfully engaged in some Tag teaming. Being the third wheel I will always end up with the short end. Herein lies the problem. I wish there were more editors who have knowledge of this subject interested in the article, then we wouldn't have a dispute. I have also long wished for dispute resolution which unfortunately, no one is willing to enter. Better to have the dispute resolved once and for all to avoid these unnecessary blocks. If I don't get indefinetely blocked, we shall eventually have a decent article. It just looks like we will have to get it done with a lot of unnecessary "fussin and fightin". Muntuwandi (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of language, table

Hello. You put an interesting table in the article on the origin of language back in July [25], giving various reconstructed roots in languages from all over the world. The table was removed in September, but someone put a copy in Proto-World language. Can you give a reference for this table? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Dede (Indonesian)

I have nominated Dede (Indonesian), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dede (Indonesian). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blond

Hi, a user seems to want to remove the photo you uploaded on the Blond article. Interested in your opinion, there seems to be a discussion on the talk page. Perebynis (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a poll about that photo on Blond. Perhaps you will wish to help achieve consensus. rewinn (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Frankie fredericks.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Frankie fredericks.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC) --Polly (Parrot) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] no pseudo-science please

In addition to uploading this image with a wrong license, I think you were also the one who used the image to imply that since these character in the painting were painted as dark, they must have been dark. That is some really bad reasoning since obviously the paint they had back then was the only color they had and they couldn't paint a light color on light these light cave walls. Please avoid pseudo science like this. There was a website making this claim that since they are dark in this painting they must have been dark, which is totally ridiculous and total pseudo science. Please avoid these types of sources and please do not imply things on Wikipedia, there is a policy here not allowing original research and speculation. In general, please avoid POVs, original research, politically motivated edits, speculation, and unreliable pseudo-science sources. Thanks. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wrong licenses on images

I've noticed you've also used wrong licenses on other images. I would recommend to you that you should review the licenses and their rules. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are blacks more intelligent?

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Ananda Lewis

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ananda Lewis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rtphokie (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)