User talk:Ramdrake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is currently 00:47 where I am

Contents

[edit] Short Break

Glad to see you back. --Kevin Murray 18:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have written extensively here and at this point have nothing more to add, except I am feeling lonely! If you agree with me, you had better comment on this thread in the discussion (and I beg you to encourage others to add their voices to this section of the discussion too). Hell, even if you disagree with me, you ought to chime in! Slrubenstein | Talk 05:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I bet you did. But if you take the time (and some pepto-bismal) to read over the "Bias in Article" and "Content Fork" sections, you will see that i have commented quite extensively. I hope that this provides you with the moral and intellectual support you were looking for and, um, empowers you to reenforce and elaborae on what I wrote 9or at least, as much of what I wrote that you agree with). SR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 11:54:30, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for filling me in. Although I will be as supportive of any attempt to improve the article by making it NOR and NPOV compliant, I regret that I do not have time to work on the content of the article because of my job-related obligations. I restored a deleted edit of yours that I thought was good. I hope you and hopefully other dedicated editors have access to some of the books I mentioned. The examples of how the Irish and Jews became white are classic case studes that ought to be in the article. The reader (by the two lawyers I mentioned) is a classic that itself represents a broad spectrum of views. You and other editors may decide that not every book is especially relevant or appropriate, but they are all verifiable and reliable sources. Valerie Babb is a professor of English at the University of Georgia, Alistair Bonnet is a Reader of Geography in the University of newcastle-upon-Thyne, Karen Brodkin is a professor of anthropology at UCLA, Richard Dyer used to be in media studies at the university of Warwick, Elizabeth Hale a professor of history at U. Virginia (and her book is very well-regarded, often assigned in college classes), Ian Haney lopez is a professor of law at UC berkeley, Michale hill is a professor of social policy at U. of brighton, David Hollinger is a professor of history at UC Berkeley, Noel Ignatiev - his work is really important ; is a professor of critical studies at the Massachussetts College of Art and a Fellow at Harvard university, Matthew Frye Jacobson is Chair of the American Studies Program at Yale, Joe Kincheloe is a professor of education at McGill (and there is a Wikipedia article about him!), George Lipsitz is a professor of Black Studies at UC Santa Barbara, Warren Crichlow is a professor of education at York University, Thomas Nakayama and Judith martin are professors of communication at Arizona State U., James O'Donnell is an associate professor of education at New Mexico state U., Michale Omi is an associate professor of ethnic studies at UC Berkeley, Howard Winant is a Professor of Sociology at UC Santa barbara, Birgit Brander Rasmussen is a professor of Chicano studies at U. Wisconsin-Madison, David R. Roediger is a professor of History at U. Illinois Champaigne-Urbana (his book is another classic, it is assigned in LOTS of college courses), Michale Paul Rogin passed away but was a professor of political science at UC berkeley, Alexander Saxton is a professor of history at UCLA ... in other words, these people teach at some of the best universitiies in the US, Canada, and UK - hardly fringe, if they can get jobs - let alone tenure - at these institutions! I hope this additional information helps you decide which if any books you try to read; feel free to share it with Jeeny and Muntuwandi or use this information however it may help you. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hello Nat.tang

Hi Ramdrake, here are some "avenues" you might want to try:

You can use these dispute resolution options to deal with the situation on the article. There are others, but you might want to try these options first. Regards, nattang 14:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

No problem. Just wanted to say that I think we got off to a bad start previously on the Race talk page and I'm sorry for that. I have taken a bit of a wikibreak since and feel much more relaxed. Hope there are no hard feelings. All the best. Alun 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ha

Right now I don't know what to say about that comment now, that me and Jeeny chat like old ladies, but it sort of feels funny. Just to say I hate soaps, I'm 16 years old and a boy, I just ask Jeeny these questions because she is one of the bigger contributers to the big brother page, plus she ain't that bad of a person. Seth71 15:29, 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) 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting. As soon as everyone else agrees to mediation, we can sort this out. By the way, I'm a new mediator, so please be patient. Thanks! :) Neranei (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
De rien! This could be a bit difficult,so thank you for your advice! I really appreciate it! Neranei (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you'll be around to sort this out. Neranei (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just being off topic...

Have you ever been to Place McGill near the Bourse or Steak et Frite in Vieux Montréal? nattang 12:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Place McGill yes, Steak and Frite no. I work at the e-business tower (near the Bell Centre). I take it you're quite familiar with downtown Montreal?--Ramdrake 12:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Not really, I was in Montreal for a week long Model UN conference last November and being the cheap people my team was, we stayed at the Auberge Alternative du Vieux Montréal. So I had a lot time to walk around on the way to the conference. It's a pretty nice city...I liked it. nattang 13:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strikeout issue

I had to undo the strikeout because it suggests that Phral took the words back, which he didn't. If you are really concerned about the trolling, just remove them entirely from the page. Perhaps an alternative is a strikeout with a 'small font' note that you struck out what appeared to be trolling. The Behnam 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For example, troll troll troll. The Behnam 19:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC) --I struck out the trolling. The Behnam 19:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's OK. I did delete it after I read it, but then reverted myself. It just shows what we're up against. :) I've allowed others to discuss the death penalty on my userpage before, even though I'm against it. No reason I have to censor Phral's views on a user talk page (mine). He has a right to his views, but not in the articles. :) - Jeeny Talk 19:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

It was on purpose. Oops :p - Jeeny Talk 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] hey

would you mind a quick e-mail to me at slrubenstein at yahoo dot com? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europe People

As soon as you can, please comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 03:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] AT

You may be interested in this [1]. Thanks for your earlier disinterested and independent help on the ANI's. Fainites barley 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your case

I saw the sock case you have on the user in question and just wanted to say that I support you and have the same suspicions. The admin on the page admitted that the user could possibly be "runtshit" and Strothra connected him to two other IPs. The user is very disruptive in general and I feel that this should be pursued. I will support you and back you in doing so.Taharqa 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that if it doesn't matter to the effect that you'd get in the least bit of trouble, then another one should be filed since the first was slightly insufficient and I'm not sure what kind of priority they put on closed cases. Presenting slightly more evidence this time, while including the various IPs seemingly connected to him should be sufficient, and whatever happens, happens. I'm 90+% sure that he's using a meat/sock though, the evidence imo is good in that more than 1 IP has popped up making the exact same edits with the same edit summary, at convenient times and on the same articles, with one of them being connected to a banned user. In any event, they need to check those IPs..Taharqa 21:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Race and Intelligence

3RR does not apply to vandalism. Also, even if not vandalism, getting blocked for WP:SOCK is worst than for the 3RR, so be careful. You are doing a good job, but sometimes patience is key. Brusegadi 20:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you are ok. Now lets get to work on that article. I find it unlikely that another edit war will erupt since most of the POV pushers have been blocked, so following Muntuwandi's advice why dont we ask an admin to shorten the quarantine? Also, we should tighten the soap enforcement on the talk page; it gets really hard to keep up with some much talking going on! Happy editing, Brusegadi 08:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ramdrake for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. KarenAER 22:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


^This is baseless. And Ramdrake, if that was in fact you, it doesn't have to be a "sockpuppet" if you merely forgot to log in, and the fact that the page in question is protected now, you wouldn't have to worry about getting blocked, if in fact it was you, and you simply weren't logged in. If it wasn't you, you should of course be fine all the same.Taharqa 22:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem!Taharqa 22:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if you are Jeeny. If you are; that is rather unfortunate. Yet, the ip is obvious. If you are not the IP, just follow your planned actions on the situation. Yet, if you are the IP; dont make things too long and just apologize and make it fair. They will block you for a couple days. Admins have much on their hands and giving them more work is not fair. I know the situation in edit wars can be frustrating, but dont drag more users (admins) into it. Help make it quick for them.Brusegadi 05:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

He is not me, nor I him. I'm a she, and live a long way from "him". - Jeeny Talk 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be little more than a campaign of intimidation. Some editors use wikilawyering as a way to intimidate other users with whom they do not agree. This is at least a question of not AGF and of refusing to accept that Wikipedia works by compromise and consensus. I have seen this pattern of Wikilawyering from an editor called Lukas19 (who reported me repeatedly to WP:PAIN and constantly described my good faith edits as "vandalism", but none of this came to anything, though it was stressful and I had many sleepless nights), it is very intimidating. If there are any attempts to intimidate you such as RfCs and reports to AN/I (and I expect this will occur as well), I shall do my best to support you both, you are both valuable assets to Wikipedia and have shown tremendous levels of good faith and tolerance, far than I think I could muster. Try not to let it get you down. I try to put it in perspective, this is supposed to be fun after all. Take care. Alun 06:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on them just to make a primae fascia case, and then a bureaucrat needs only to check the IP addresses and will see that it is not even possible, so you simply have to do ... nothing. Maybe it is an attempted campaign of intimidation but it is a feeble one, I see it more as a sign of their frustration and desperation, which to me is encouraging. Anyway, you know, they can't touch you. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The user who reported you is definitely a pov-pusher who does nothing but submit racist material from outdated sources. Is there any way to report that, as it is pretty blatant and obvious? Ramdrake has of course done nothing wrong!Taharqa 05:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have not been kidnapped!

It's me, it really is! I wasn't kidnapped, I just developed a sense of humour (and also decided that satire is the only proper response to this little farce). I ask you to delete your own comments form the talk page as I do not want you to get in trouble for anyone suspecting that you are even seeming to accuse Fourdee of impersonating me. And I did warn Alun about this, so he knows. Sorry to have caused you any distress, it is a joke - I didn't think I would need to explain it. I guess I am a better mimic than I thought! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Who knew I was that good?!? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply

I agree 100%. And yes, if the latest contributions have been more balanced, then goodfaith is in order. However, like you say, if that kind of behavior continues, then by all means, of course a case should be filed. That type of distortion and disruption is unacceptable.Taharqa 15:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: tone

I see now. :) It's just that I have AN/I on my watchlist and it's not every day I see "zOMG zOMG zOMG" in the edit summary. ;) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is serious:

The reason I think that the first stone tool made by H. habilus was the most important invention in human history is because for the first time (arguable - I have an explanation for chimp tools) an animal imagined something that was not there and changed the world - or a small piece of it to match what s/he imagined. This is what in my opinion defines us as a species and it is what makes poetry as well as computers possible. It is the key to human creativity which makes us arguably the most generalized species on the planet - through symbolic thinking, our imagination and our ability to represent, teach, act on our imagination, we can adapt culturally to niches for which we are not adapted biologically.

But the caveat: what makes us hard wired to be poets and physicists and sculptors and ship-builders is (1) the ability to see something that is not there and (2) the insistence on making what we imagine, reality.

I think the above explains not just racism but all the problems with Wikipedia. I hope this makes sense to you, maybe it is kind of funny but I am in earnest. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It has a very real evolutionary advantage in enabling our species to populate the globe, including surviving an ice-age. I am convinced it is what enables humans to populate deserts, rainforests, and the arctic. Alas, what has enabled us to adapt to our environment so successfully that there are now human settlements with over 30 million inhabitants - in the process, we are changing our enironment in ways that may lead to our own extinction. That is the ultimate irony, I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race

I just made this edit, please review it, revise if necessary, and and keep an eye on it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That is inappropriate. Would you like it if I left similar comments to the talk pages of fourdee, KarenAER and other people who usually agree with me?

MoritzB 20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new policy

any thoughts about this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the current guideline that says talk page isn't a soapbox should be replaced by an enforceable policy akin to WP:3RR. Not sure quite how it would work, but cutting down on soapboxing would 1)reduce soapboxing(!) (akin to what our friend Fourdee was doing) and 2)very likely reduce instances of mediations going nowhere because one or a few people are hijacking the conversation against consensus. Now, as to the fine print of the policy, a set of warning would be appropriate, but how to make that happen without making such policy a drain on admin resources? That's a thorny question. Any suggestions?--Ramdrake 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afrocentrism

Yes, it is soapboxing - although parts of it, specifically anything adding NPOV accurate information about who Afrocentrists are, (not judging them, just identifying them and their political or academic backgrounds) is not soap-boxing, because such information is necessary to identify different points of view. It becomes soapboxing whenever it turns into an argument over good or bad, right or wrong. I thought Titaneum dragon's comment was soapboxing. I think ElC did the right thing - if you think my policy suggestion has merit (few seem t) you might want to discuss it with El C, whose advice, at least concerning policy, is always worth listening to. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN/I case

Hey drake. I left this on Jeeny's page as well. If you have the time, please review the pov/wiki abuse case that I set up here against MoritzB, and if you can, try and add some additional input, observations, or opinions. Thanx.[2]Taharqa 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophilia discussion

Thanks for confirming that I wasn't completely insane. Kinda thought I was the odd man out, entirely. Everybody else seemed to be reading some huge terrible message into that, but what he put into the articles seems pretty innocent compared to what he's saying in the discussion. Thanks again, though. It is nice to see that someone else sees things at least close to the same way I do.  :x Lychosis T/C 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tortoiseshell

Thank You and the others who added the info! Dysmorodrepanis 01:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Common Sense Prevails‎

Has been blocked, as a sock, and don't see anything on ANI. I wonder which sock...hmmm. I guess commonsense does prevail. :) - Jeeny Talk 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Hi, you have been too quiet. Just checking up on you. Muntuwandi 17:31, 11 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] I love you

Jeeny has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you so much for everything. You are great! Because you are related to me, in some weird way. :) More so because you are a very valuable Wikipedian. Jeeny 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

i know you have avoided getting involved in the NOR debate, but I really could use your help with one thing. I am starting to lose patience with WAS 4.250, which is a bad thing. Am I misinterpreting him? Am I being unfair? I would appreciate it if you would comment on this exchange. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] == Please do not break up posts ==

For a second time, I have restored my post on Talk:Quebec#This_is_not_a_place_to_discuss_Quebec_politics to its original condition. Please see Talk page guidelines which states that interruptions of others comments (if permitted at all) must be restricted to short comments on minor issues. This certainly wasn't the case with User:Mathieugp, who divided the post up into several pieces with very long comments. When multiple editors respond, the entire posting is destroyed, as you can now see. Please do not break up my post again. Thank you. --Soulscanner 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please help with NOR

Could you go to the talk for NOR here and comment on this and the next two sections (i.e. the last few sections of the talk page? We keep going in circles but these three sections are all at the heart of the matter and I think your informed and experienced comments will be very valuable. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec nation issue

Hi! I've noticed you have added to the discussion on Talk:Quebec and, in response to the discussion regarding whether or not Quebec is a nation, I have replied with this. I would like you to read the discussion on the Talk:Quebec page, then read my response and leave your comments on it's talk page! Thanks for your input. Andrew647 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ramdrake, I appreciate your posts. Just a small suggestion, your last post is located under my «second paragraph» separate item, then Andrew then yourself again. It looks a little confusing as I you're responding, I think, to my «first paragraph» heading, or is it to previous discussions... I wasn't 100% sure so I did not want to reposition it myself... Cheers--Tallard 20:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • PS, I've noticed that the 3RR rule is often randomly applied to only one side of an argument, that weirds me out.

Yes I realise :) So I specifically give you permission to break up my first and second paragraph posts, just for the sake of clarity? I myself consider them seperate posts :) Cheers--Tallard 20:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling, then POV

Thank you, spurrrrr of the moment mistake. :)--Tallard 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Funny how I had not planned on taking part on this debate, but Andrew invited me in... I believe that in this particular case, in this particular language, fair representation of Quebec will be impossible to attain within en:wiki policies... I believe it's hopeless because it's en:wiki, and anglophones of Canada choose to disagree with Québécois on the very definition of facts and choose to selectively see what concurs with their opinion. So I don't expect any better from en:wiki, on this particular issue... I had a good laugh reading «a decade of bombings and violence» made it sound like Palestine or something, horrible wording, was nothing like that, and I had completely apolitical friends and family who were arrested and detained without cause in those years. The violence was more from government than from the people. Same as today's pepper spraying of non dangerous students at globalisation protests. Cheers

No arguments on unanimity vs consensus, I just am presuming that as a majority of en:wiki editors are anglophones, the consensus among them will differ than the consensus among fr:wiki editors. That's where it becomes an interesting wiki guideline issue, if the concensus reached is separated along linguistic lines on a topic pertaining to ONE particular linguistic group, how does that play out in Wikipedia guidelines? Since Canadians and Quebecers can't reach consensus in real life, there's no way we'll achieve it here. I feel Wikipedia administrators will have to slice on this issue. And whatever slice is chosen will be explained clearly. Cheerio from Whitehorse, Yukon!, we can't stay home for ever, gotta see the world. (oh by the way, I always side with the struggling masses, no matter if I'm in their midst or not ;)

[edit] and Belle Province and bombings

Only people over 60 still call it that!!! Ha ha ha--Tallard 21:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after reading the fr:Québec page, I think it's one of those cases where the en:quebec page should have been simply translated instead of separately written. The fr page has much better flow, lots more facts, and almost no POV. They've been careful to keep everything in the historical and geograhical realms, keeping the politics out of it and relegating them to a distinct page. much better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallard (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're involved in this rewrite, can you tell me if both those points are being removed? Belle province is not mentioned anywhere in the fr:québec because frankly, it's passé. Do we need to discuss this on the talk page or is there consensus on these points? thanks ::) --Tallard 10:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decade of bombings

I won't change it, but I felt compelled to bring two points to your attention.

First, the number of deaths have no bearing over how long the bombings lasted. It doesn't matter whether you killed 1,000 people, 100 people, or nobody at all. If the bombings lasted a decade, then they lasted a decade regardless of the level of casualities.

Secondly, you are also taking the sentence out of context. The decade refers to the bombings, the robberies, and the attacks directed at English institutions as a whole, and not just to the bombings. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GFDL

In order to fullfill GFDL criteria, the authorship history for all text must be preserved. If we merge pieces of text from any article to any other article, we can never delete the first one, as that would remove the author history for that text. Therefore, we then usually redirect it to the other article. If, however, information is merged back (and the actual text rewritten from scratch) this "problem" can be circumvented. Unfortunately you are right that many merge and deletes have taken place and currently Wikipedia is filled with LOTS of GFDL violations. For more information, see (among others) Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete.

P.S. This was also posted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (2nd) as a reply, but I posted it here as well in order to prevent the AfD from getting cluttered with potential discussion about this topic. Cheers, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If any original text is copied from this article to any other article and this article would be deleted, yes that would be a problem. If the other article truly is written from scratch to include the information that should be merged (something that rarely happens), it would not be a problem to delete. But please realize that you then cannot use any actual text from the deleted article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Low Ashkenazi IQ scores by 1930

I've found a claim on a book review by the professor of anthropology Mark Nathan Cohen, on the "Evolutionary Psychology" journal, that by 1930 Ashkenazis used to have an IQ score of 70. Unfortunately the review does not cite any source, and I couldn't find any either, searching for that I was only able to found the usual high IQ claims. I think you may find it interesting, relevant to some of wikipedia's articles, and you probably may have better means to find something than I do (such as access to more scientific publications).

[...] It is interesting and informative that the an IQ of 70 is very like the estimate for Ashkenazi Jewish--now considered to have very high average IQ’s--offered 75 years ago as proof that Jews were unworthy of citizenship.

--Extremophile 22:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I don't have your e-mail, but go ahead and reach me at keita_sundiata@yahoo.comTaharqa 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race

Hello Ramdrake, oh boy, I hope the simple disambiguation name page change was not the cause of all the huffa! If it's the case, I don't understand why renaming the disambiguation page brought about a new discussion on content of the race page itself, it's the same as before, or is it because it brought to the limelight articles that people weren't aware of and overlapping content? Anyway the specific reason I'm writing you is I'm confused about the pages histories. When I try to see the history for the disambiguation page, I get redirected to the total Race - classification talk page...I'm totally confused. thanks for clarifying this for me--Tallard 01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AE

You are taking the side of the trolls. Muntuwandi, Taharqa and Lusala-whatever are not editing in good faith, and disrupt Wikipedia for the sake of it. There can be no talk of "consensus" as long as people do not submit to Wikipedia core policies. The "AE Race" page has been trolled in this vein for ages, and I am not prepared to back down until it has been cleaned up. This will of course mean arbitration, since Taharqa etc. are quite apparently not prepared to cease trolling, and the wider community is not prepared to step in because the issue is too involved to grasp at a glance (thanks to the troll smoke screen), and because, of course, everyone is afraid to insult "ethnic people". My idea of "no racism" is treating every editor according to the same standards. My idea of "racism" is going easy on "ethnic" editors because, well, a feeling that "they are 'ethnic' and don't know any better". dab (𒁳) 12:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on my talkpage. dab (𒁳) 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
well, seeing that you basically agree with me, I find it difficult to understand how you can revert in unison with the trolls. It is clear to you and me that the material on that page needs to be disentangled. Yet you revert to the ideological mess that just screams bad faith at any intelligent reader. Way to go, Ramdrake. Go on in this vein, and the article will just be protected again. I am in no hurry: I am not here for this article, and it costs me nothing to insist on cleanup in regular intervals. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for not playing fair

I myself am not really a creationist per se, I just work with all the religion projects including that one, so no problem. I basically just mentioned that project, and the whole separate series of Christology articles, to indicate that there can be, and sometimes are, cases where there is sufficient content regarding a subject for there to be multiple articles relating to it. I will post a similar statement by me on the talk page at my next such post. I only mentioned both to really indicate that there are a number of situations where the amount of content justifieds separation of articles, and that I think this might be the case here. Like I said, I will make a similar statement there. No hard feelings. John Carter 15:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Edits to cat coat genetics

Hello, some of your edits to Cat coat genetics have me concerned, as they go against what I have been taught as a Selkirk Rex breeder: AFAIK, the Se gene is a complete dominant, and cats on the show ring are preferred with a full, but curly coat, contrary to what your edits seem to say. If you are sure about your edits, I would ask that you provide sources for these controversial changes, or else I will have to revert them.--Ramdrake 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, yes I am sure about this. It is well know that homozygous Selkirks have a difference appearance to heterozygous ones. Selkirk breeders I know can spot the difference prectically from birth. The show standard is written for the heterozygous Selkirk and as a result the GCCF breeding policy http://www.gccfcats.org/regpols/selkirkregpol.pdf places Selkirks from Selkirk x Selkirk matings on the supplementary register- not the full register. If the Se gene was a complete dominant it would produce the same phenotype in both heterozygous and homozygous individuals and separating the two registers in this way would be unnecessary. I think the confusion lies in the fact that the Se gene DOES have complete penetrance (unlike for example the American Wirehair gene), however it doesn't have complete dominance because the full effect of the gene seen in homozygous individuals is incomplete in heterozygous individuals. Compare it to what happens with ticked tabby; again this has complete penetrance- all individuals with one copy of the gene are ticked tabbies, but those with two copies are different in appearance and have no stripes on their legs. Compare it also to the white spotting gene- again it gives different phenotypes depending on whether the cat is heterozygous or homozygous for the gene. This is basically an 'additive' effect.

[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] Your opinion

Hi, would appreciate your opinion regarding my quite extensive edit here. Cheers. Alun 17:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on WP:CSD#G4

G4 is an often-misunderstood criterion, and probably one more open to interpretation than most, so it's nothing against you at all. Generally, I will only G4 an article if that specific article was created under a same or similar title, was deleted at AfD, and a new article is created which does not make a substantial effort to address the concerns raised at the previous AfD. That's really what it's designed to prevent—someone who disagrees with an AfD outcome tendentiously recreating it. For more complex situations, like the one you describe, it's best to take them back to AfD for a full discussion. I don't believe it's really appropriate in that case for that call to be made without getting community input first. (Though, of course, it certainly would be wise to point out what you told me in the deletion nomination.) Hope that helps! Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry Seraphimblade, I know you are a fair and conscientious admin, but your reasoning is completely at odds with what WP:CSD#G4 actually says. You say I will only G4 an article if that specific article was created under a same or similar title but the G4 section states clearly A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version. It's not even a question of interpretation, it's very clear. If you want to claim that no substantially similar article has previously existed then you have a point, but claiming that the title of the article needs to be similar does not appear to be a legitimate reason. I can accept that this is not similar to any previously existing article, though it is clearly a pov-fork and is designed to do exactly what you say G4 is supposed to prevent, that is to avoid the merging of the plethora of racist articles into a single article as per a specific AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)) where the conclusion was these child articles will be merged back into the parent. This article is an attempt to avoid this consensus. Alun 06:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • While you do have a good point (an exact copy of a deleted article recreated at another title of a deleted article would generally be a valid reason to G4), this is a bit more complex than that. Also, merging is an editorial decision. Even if we accept that the AfD applies to this article (which seems to me to be a bit fuzzy and bear further discussion in and of itself), if the AfD argument was to merge, the correct thing to do would seem to be to merge and redirect this article in line with that consensus. Regardless, given that it is a more complex situation than your average G4, I just don't think taking it back to AfD for community review would be a bad idea. If you're correct that it should be removed, that's what will happen there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes I agree, it is easier, simpler and less ambiguous to have another AfD. Thanks for responding to me. Alun 08:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Remembrance...

Remembrance Day


--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound

As a courtesy, could you give us your feedback on our progress on our R&I sandbox section at User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. I think this has been productive, but lacks broad participation.

I'd alos like to discuss some direction for the article in general with you, if you have the time.

Thanks. --Kevin Murray 16:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your feedback. --Kevin Murray 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barn Star

The Original Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for being such a tireless contributor and so patient in discussions regarding "race" related articles. Alun 18:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thankspam

Thank you...

[edit] Afrocentrism

I've left some comments on the edit-warring users' pages and the talk page. I've also protected the page for a day, so that they will stop edit-warring. Thank you for alerting me to the issue. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Neranei (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rfc

Where are you drafting it? I don't think it will work becuse the user has been here for such a long time. But, If you're going to do it, I'll help in every way that I can. futurebird 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of supporters of PETA

List of supporters of PETA, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of supporters of PETA satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supporters of PETA and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of supporters of PETA during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Are you going to bother?

With doing an rfc? I feel really "shut down" at the moment. I have urge to just blank my user page an not come back to this website. But, that's not very mature is it? *sigh* -- futurebird (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User conduct

You didn't follow the procedure outlined on the page. If you follow procedure, you should get a blue link instead of a red one. -- John Carter (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ip sock

Thanks for the heads up. Muntuwandi (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong version

If this truly is the wrong version, then I agree that this should be reverted and the article semi-protected instead of fully protected. However, I see very little in terms of a discussion at talk on this issue, certainly nothing consensus-worthy. The anon is edit warring, for sure, but this seems to be a content dispute. Please feel free to convince me otherwise. Perhaps the best way to do so is demonstrate an obvious consensus at talk. · jersyko talk 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI. · jersyko talk 00:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DeeCeeVoice

I just had a look at the AN/I for DeeCeeVoice and I think I've come to it a bit late, I'm not sure of the history of this issue, or of the problems at the article. I would like to post in support of DeeCeeVoice, but I'm not sure what to say. I do know that DC is an invaluable editor, if not irreplaceable. I also know that some editors seem to be able to get away with a lot more incivility and POV pushing than other editors, indeed I would go so far as to say that editors from certain ethnic groups seem to be far more likely to get blocked for incivility, incivility and pov-pushing than editors who have very similar records of edit warring, pov-pushing, incivility etc. I don't know if it's because people from some ethnic groups are more likely to be reported (due to raci...um I mean "systemic bias" if you get my drift) and therefore get a reputation for being incivil, or if it's more to do with bias in implementing blocks against people from certain ethnic groups. I was amazed at how long it took for the cabal of Lukas19, (KarenAER's puppetmaster), Fourdee et al. to get blocked. There's also a certain admin I've noticed who is extremely incivil, never assumes good faith, likes to edit war and is an inveterate POV pusher, and until recently this person had never been blocked, I was amazed given the way this person throws their weight as an admin about, and the nastiness of their talk page contributions. It seems to me that policy is not applied anything like evenly or consistently here. this is partly to do with the lack of a strict hierarchy on Wikipedia, which is a good thing, but also to do with a systemic bias in the way Wikipedia is administered (as well as in it's content). This must be an obvious consequence of the systemic bias of the internet. I really don't know how to help here, if there's anything specific you think I can do then please let me know. One option would be to have an RfC on DeeCee, so we can get a good selection of views from editors who have dealt with DeeCee. All the best. Alun (talk) 18:12, 17 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 19:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please turn your attention to this [3]. Regards -- and HAPPY NEW YEAR. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat Coat Genetics

Hi, a little while ago you asked for some genetics info and to my shame I have only got around to getting it to you! My apologies for the slow speed of operation! This is an extract from Dr Suasn Thorpe-Vargas's Genetics book which explains why a cat (or any other animal) which has a different phenotype depending on whether it is heterozygous or homozygous for a gene must therefore have an incomplete dominant gene at play. The rest of the book is good to. I have it to email if you would like- although it is a bit dog-heavy for us cat lovers, but the principles are the same...


Simple dominance Dog breeders sometimes fall into the trap of assuming a trait is due to a dominant allele because “even after being hidden for generations it just popped back out…I can’t seem to get rid of it”. In fact, they have put their finger on the signature of the recessive allele. Consider the case of black versus liver hair color. A single dominant allele (B) codes for black pigmentation. Dogs that are either BB or Bb will be black and indistinguishable from one another. The “science speak” way of describing this is to say that the genotype is different but the phenotype is the same. In the case of two recessive alleles, bb, liver color result. If two liver (bb) dogs were bred together, they could only produce liver offspring. If two black dogs were bred, the possibility exists that both of those dogs could be heterozygous (Bb) and produce a bb offspring that would be liver--not because the liver was dominant, but because it was recessive and thus hidden in the parents. A trait caused by a dominant allele can be traced directly from one ancestor to the next through a pedigree, although, as we will see later, other genes can also act on the dog’s color to possibly modify or obscure it. Not all traits are inherited in this manner, however. In fact, most traits do not show simple dominance.


Incomplete dominance In contrast to simple dominance, in which two alleles produce three possible genotypes but only two possible phenotypes, incompletely dominant allele pairs produce three possible genotypes and phenotypes. The merle coat color pattern (found in breeds such as the Australian Shepherd, Dachshund, and Collie) is an example of an intermediate phenotype created by two non-identical (M and m) alleles. Dogs that are mm have “normal” non-merle coat colors determined by genes at other locations. Dogs that are Mm display the classic merle color, in which areas of the coat have loss of normal pigmentation, resulting in the appearance of flecks or patches of normally colored hair interspersed among lighter hair. Dogs that are MM have greater pigment loss, may be nearly white, and very often have visual and auditory problems that are pigment related. Breeders thus usually discourage merle to merle breeding, since ¼ of the progeny of a Mm x Mm breeding would be MM—and therefore likely to have vision and hearing problems. Instead, taking advantage of incomplete dominance, merles (Mm) are best obtained by breeding non-merles (mm) to merles (Mm), resulting in litters consisting on average of 50% Mm merles and 50% mm non-merles. Two simple tests can determine if a trait is incompletely dominant. For one, crosses between two different parental types should always result in the intermediate type. For another, crosses between two intermediate types should result in both intermediate as well as parental types.

Quincunxcats (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R & I proposal

What do you think of this? I would like to expand this idea and then suggest it on the talk page, but only if there will be some people around to help with the process. What do you think? futurebird (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'd be willing to contribute, that's for sure.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Let's not have an article on race and intelligence. Before anyone cries "CENSORSHIP" or anything of that sort let me explain. The views of Rushon and Jensen belong in their biography articles, or in articles on their books and papers and the controversies that they have caused. The views on race and its nature as a social construct belong in the articles on race, and the articles for the academics who holds those views. The discussion of test gaps belongs in the article in test gaps etc.

Our attempt to provide a summary of this topic as a summary has failed because it continues to result in an original synthesis of information, and because there is not a definitive position on the topic "race and intelligence" or even race and IQ.

My proposal is that we take the material in this article and move each item to its proper place so nothing is deleted and no information is lost and then delete this article.

[edit] Arbcom

Why is the race and intelligence article being brought up at arbcom? I don't get it. futurebird (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple principle: if the evidence on one side is undeniable, its weight may be diminished if you manage to sully the reputation of the accusers. Personnally, I find this reasoning somewhat puerile, but, hey, some people will go for it. Hang in there, young lady! :)--Ramdrake (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long-form name of "Province of Quebec", ou "Province du Quebec" en francais

Hello Ramdrake.

long-form name: Province of Quebec, Province du Quebec

short-form name: Quebec.

These are facts.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ramdrake. The citations of Province of Quebec (ou Province du Quebec en francais) are still present in the Consolidated Constitution Acts (1867-1975) which are in the Canada Act 1982.
ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Dbachmann is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved, and to avoid misusing the administrative rollback tool for content reversions. Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians are placed on article probation. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the ArbCom may be of some use after all ;) (though I keep in mind that I was one vote shy of being banned -- for nothing). I never did find the patience to focus on the prosecution of User: Moreschi for his actions, or all of the suggested "remedies," but perhaps he and Dbachmann will both find themselves a little chastened by this recent decision. It was about time someone did something to rein in these rogue admins who think they can get away with anything. Well done -- all around. :) deeceevoice (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery removal

I agree completely, the comment was not directed at you. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tmursch has now been blocked due to the personal attacks made on this talkpage, if you have any further problems with this editor when their block expires please get in touch and I will deal with them appropriately. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IQ - individual potentials

"Individuals are born with different individual potentials; such has been demonstrated." Am hoping you realise this is not true in more than 1 way and maybe true only in that no two non-quanta quantities are ever exactly the same. (Unlesss we can ID and deliver "optimal environments" for test individuals?). SmithBlue (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Was it a good one? Kindred spirits often get that impression, I think. Thanks for the welcome. :) ←Gee♥Alice 01:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something

This thread is quite interesting, what do you think? This user comes from St.Catherine's Ontario and shares a dynamic IP address with Epf. Alun (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had gone over this Alun previously? These edits and entries were not by me, but someone else who is on Bell's large network around here. There has been a very small amount of entries with IP's where it was me and I forgot to sign-in (today a few times I was automatically signed out for some reason). In any case, I'm glad we were able to discuss the matter on Franz Boas, although some of Alun's claims towards myself are unfounded and most of my views are in line with many anthropologists, although I like to think at least some are distinct to myself. Epf (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec

Hello Ramdrake. I don't mind your restoring the 'people as a nation' in the introduction (as long as you say 'people', not the province itself ). I am concerned however, that it's prominance (i.e. being in the introduction) may be viewed by others as political agenda pushing. Anyways, I'm not gonna revert. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My worries have been confirmed. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I've reverted your most recent edit only so that we can discuss the matter (and reach a consensus). Why a revert? That is a fair question; my reasoning is that the inclusion of "nation" is something of a lightning rod, if you will, and so by leaving it out for now we can keep the article stable and focus on achieving consensus. (I'd also suggest incorporating a hidden comment about the term, and the fact a discussion is under way, but wanted to run that by you first.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 23:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to get annoyed (again), with Pgsylv. I think he may have to be be blocked (including is IP number). Either he's forgetting to sign in, or he thinks by not signing in, he can't be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He's certainly annoying, but he is entitled to his opinion as long as he's civil with other editors. However, this morning's deleted spat would tend to prove he has issues with keeping a civil tongue.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a new (?) anon editor harassing me. Either there's something familiar about the new anon or I'm getting paranoid. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, in the sense no you're not getting paranoid and yes, it is eerily familiar. Somebody probably just learned how to disguise their IP, or else switched internet providers :).--Ramdrake (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno how you guys manage to keep your tempers in check. I nearly blew up at his last comment. I reported again to the Wikiquette and hopefully something will stop him. :s Pieuvre (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend Ramdrake, that you also notify Wikipedia: WikiProject Canada of the 'motion discussion'. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
While it seemed obvious to me that many people on the Quebec WP projet might care about the issue (and have some knowledge of it too), it didn't seem obvious to me that many people on the Canada project would know as much or care as much, and that is why I left the message on the Quebec board. Please feel free to echo the message on the Canada WP project board if you feel it is warranted; I don't feel it is as warranted; it's not like the need to warn the two sides in a dispute resolution process.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There's Canadians outside Quebec who suppport 'the motion' & there's Canadians inside Quebec (i.e. Quebecers) who 'oppose' it. Anyways, my 'harsh suggestion' seems to have upset you, I apologies for that. Please see my 'home page' for my views on 'edit warring' & thus my reasons for wanting to end the dispute & get the Quebec article unlocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
PS- If you absolutely refuse to take the 'Quebecois motion' out of the lead & Soulscanner absolutely refuses to have it in the lead? Then it's a tragedy for all those 'innocent' editors, who are prevented from editing the article (due to the protection). I hope you both will reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

After having taken a mini-break (installed a new computer), I reflected on my recent 'suggestion'. Having looked at again, it comes across as a form of censurship. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly how I read it, although I'll give you, based on your previous interventions, that's very unlikely to be how you meant it to be. No offense taken, no harm done.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pgsylv

Hi, I think you might want to comment here. nat.utoronto 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: About this second block of user Pgsylv

It's clear that Pgsylv is being disruptive. S/he was informed not to edit Quebec or Talk:Quebec and s/he willfully ignored that. After the second block expires, I'd be happy to re-evaluate the situation, however, allowing users to disrupt articles and talk pages simply won't be tolerated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New wording on Quebec lead

I've tweaked the wordings to incorporate the National Assembly motion wording into the text. I think it reads well. We should also consider lifting Pgslvl's ban on editing on the Talk page if he/she promises to leave the lead alone. --soulscanner (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Pgslvl: Let's open up the talk page to him/her and see if he/she can contribute constructively. Let's point out that this is a good example of how quickly compromise comes about if people restrain themselves from edit warring and personal accusations. We all learn about how wiki works by observing and participating. --soulscanner (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, try to contact other editors before inserting the final version. This will prevent angry editors from reverting things later on (we both know how annoying that can be); let's give it a day or two so that other editors get a say in the final wording. --soulscanner (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Pg's page - I don't think he's reformed yet. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure happy, you & Soulscanner have worked things out at Quebec. PS- Things sure got resolved quickly after Pgsylv was booted out. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:Do you think there's something 'familiar' about that IP address, that's recently been posting at talk: Quebec? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Race Differences in Intelligence. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. [4] [5] [6] [7] --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so. Two of the edits are actual additions of text, not reverts, unless you can show a consistent version being reverted to. On the other hand, Jagz' reverts are just that.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hi

What do you think of this proposal by me. Alun (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to make a comment, either in support or against. It would be good to get all ideas about how we could go about getting some sort of guideline. I'm not proposing a strict definition of ethnic group for Wikipedia, just a guideline so when we discuss ethnic groups on talk pages we can all be on the same page, and not always having a long debate about the meaning of ethnicity. I agree that Epf's ability to conveniently ignore the facts are quite scary, not only does he claim that those who disagree with him are really agreeing with him, he claims that sources that flatly contradict him are actually supporting him, that when he is the only person supporting a position that "many agree with him" and that when there is a clear majority against him it is only me against him. The guy seems to live in some sort of alternative reality where every source supports him and every person who disagrees with him is really on his side. He seems to be incapable of accepting any decision that goes against him . It really is very scary. All the best. Alun (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Ramdrake, do feel free to make a comment if you wish, but I suggest ignoring much of Alun's false accusations and rhetoric. The thing is Alun that there already is a decent guideline for ethnic group articles which recognizes that the definition will vary from group to group and article to article. I have not ignored the facts whatsoever and in fact your consistent false remarks towards myself, constant misunderstanding of my discussions and complete disregard for reading actual anthropological material I've advocated for you to read, is "scary". I do not know what "majority" you are talking about is against me or in terms of what issue you are referring. Your discussions have lacked so much organization recently that few people even take take what you say seriously anymore. I again do not know which issue you are referring to or where I said that "many people agree with me" though I do recall saying that many people have understandably not disagreed with me on the topics or in the manner that you have. You seem to live contently with ignoring everything I mention to you, including any source which clearly shows your misunderstanding of the topic at hand (including one you yourself have provided).I am beginning to lose any respect for you as a valid contributor. Epf (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I do not know what "majority" you are talking about is against me
The majority on the Franz Boas atlk page, where no one has supported your suggestion. The majority on the French people voting page, where you want to remove people that have strong support for inclusion because you claim "they are not ethnically French". Those are the majorities, they are clearly there, but you pretend to be speaking for "most people" while providing no substance for this claim. Alun (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • few people even take take what you say seriously anymore
What "few"? Again you claim to be speaking for a majority of editors, but there is no evidence to support this claim. Only a few disagree with you and those "few" are the ones who take me seriously, that's what you are claiming, but there is no evidence for this, this huge majority that support you seem to be a figment of your imagination, where are they? Where are the large numbers of people supporting you? Why do they not post on the talk pages? Why is there not a plethora of posts criticising my edits if they are taken as you claim? I can find no evidence that you speak for "most" people, and I can find no evidence that "only a few" take my posts seriously. It's easy to make grandiose claims about "most" people supporting you, it's easy to claim that "few" take me seriously, but it is more difficult to support those claims. So far there is a grand total of a single person supporting you on the French people vote, hardly the huge numbers you claim to "speak for". I haven't visited Cloud cuckoo land recently, how's the weather? Alun (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am basing this statement on your recent edits, discussions and opinions about myself. I have not claimed there is a "huge majority that supports me". Are you ok, honestly ? Your discussions as of late do not seem characterisitc of those in the past we have had and are very emotionally motivated. You are making several mistakes and not reading clearly what I am saying. I have only said that there has been no one else who has disagreed with me on the same points and in the same manner which you have done. So far there is no one who has supported many of your comments on various discussions involving me, most choosing to ignore them for obvious reasons. I do not know what the problem is but relax. Epf (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine, I'm just fed up with your extremely tedious, tendentious, self righteous, close minded, biased and biggoted attitudes. I'm particularly frustrated by your inability to understand that you do not have support for the claims you make, and have failed to make anything like a convincing case. I am amazed that you appear to be incapable of understanding when a source flatly contradicts you, you so distort what any source actually says that you make absurd claims for it supporting you. You appear to be obsesses with "descent" and "ancestry" even though huge amount of research shows that these are not the sole arbiters of "ethnic identity", and are themselves socially constructed phenomena, but you constantly apply these criteria as if they are equivalent constants for all ethnic groups at all periods in time. You are an inveterate pov-pusher and appear to have no interest in producing an encyclopaedia, rather you are only interested that Wikipedia should report the "word according to Epf". You constantly claim to be speaking for "most" or "many" people, while providing no support for these claims. Now you claim that I am not reading clearly what you are saying, so what are you saying when you claim "few people even take take what you say seriously". Is that not "personal", and what is it based on? Have you polled a large group of Wikipedians? Do you have statistics to support what you are saying? Your claims are absurd, you claim on one talk page that "most" people support you, then on another you state that you have made no such claim. I suppose now you are going to say that you haven't claimed that "few people" take me seriously? I really don't give a damn if you "respect" me or not, I have no respect for pov-pushing tendentious edit warriors. Alun (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"I'm just fed up with your extremely tedious, tendentious, self righteous, close minded, biased and biggoted attitudes."

You could not be farther from the truth and I am really not displaying any of such. I find it strange that you continue to claim that I have not made "a convincing case" though it is understandable if you have a personal problem with some of the subject matter being discussed. I do not know what source you claim contradicts me, but there is none which does so, including the only one I can think of that you are referring to, the one by Jonathan Marks. It is only your twisted interpretation of it which would contradict anything I have said, which is still very small. I do not deny that ancestry and common descent are not the sole diacritics of ethnicity, but there is no massive amount of research (which you erroneously claim; also, there is none which you have provided stating such) which says that they are only socially constructed phenomena. I do not doubt that most aspects of it are socially constructed and that this strongly impacts the development and cohesiveness of the ethnic group. These constructs are, however, based on factors, markers or notions with some biological, natural or familial origin. Again, few will deny this and most of the sources in the ethnic group article will support all of which I have said. I am not an "inverterate pov-pusher", though such could be said about you in many instances. I do have an interest in building an encyclopedia, and care especially that it represent a fully NPOV, one that is not consisted of material or sources which are twisted or filtered through the POV of Alun or any other user who does not give a fully accurate, balanced perspective. I admit I have used "many" when referring to certain examples and have sometimes provided examples (especially in terms of anthropology, if you would have read the sources I cited to you on Talk:French people/Vote or Talk:French people), but I try to not use "most" that often without proper statistics. You yourself are guilty of using such wording Alun so be careful before you lay blame on other users. I meant to say that few people would take what you say seriously in terms of our recent discussion since you have been misreading most of my solid arguments and compeltely ignored most of the points and references I made (specifically on Talk:French people/vote). I was also referring to the fact that barely anyone entered the discussion to support anything you said. I have not claimed anywhere recently that "most people" on a talk page (I don't know what you are referring to here) supported me (though I do remember saying such in terms of sources and references when speaking about anthropologists). I am not a "pov-pushing, tendentious edit warrior", and if you have a personal problem with me, there's not much I can do about that is there ? Ciao, Epf (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Epf, I don't know how I can rephrase this to be any clearer: I fully endorse Alun's position and observations that you seem to either totally disregard or misinterpret the opinions of others. Most of your opinions have little to no credibility, and even less support in those articles where I've come across your interventions. However, you seem to believe there is strong support for your positions, despigte the fact that numerous editors have either told you they don't support your opinions, or flatly told you you're wrong. I suggest that, at this point, Epf, your best option is to cease and desist from pushing your own POV as the truth despite evidence to the contrary; if you continue in this behaviour, I think it won't be long before you get bocked or worse, banned. Please behave yourself accordingly.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Meetup/Montreal

I see you are a user located in Montréal, you may be interested in: Wikipedia:Meetup/Montreal. Please add your name to the "Interested" or to the "Not interested" list. Date is set for May 3rd 2008 and Buffet La Stanza is the proposed location. If you have another idea for the location; propose away! Please pass on to any Montreal Wikis you maybe aware of and who are not yet listed as interested, may be interested, or not interested. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 04:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen you're already listed as interested... This can be an update on time and date. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 05:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: French people

Wow, resorting to personal attacks and insults with no factual basis whatsoever. It seems that you are both the ones who lack credibility in these discussions. Just because I interpreted a source and its information differently (and clearly more accurately if you look at the description of demographics in other countries of the US Department of State's background notes, which deals with the ethnic composition) from yours does not mean I am "lying". Honestly, I don't really care if you think "I haven't made a good argument" and it is quite obvious that neither of you have made a valid response to them. My conclusion is that both of you have resorted to personal insults (please see WP:No Personal Attacks) because my POV and arguments strongly challenge yours. You are both abrasive and ignorant users and I am personally fed up with your "ganging-up" method of dealing with very supported viewpoints from other users that challenge your own. When someone interprets an issue differently with strong reasoning behind it, it does not merit you to make ad hominem arguments. Whatever relevance you had in this discussion has evaporated. Epf (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Québécois

Hi Ramdrake, since you've been involved on the page, I was wondering if you could help me deal with edits by Soulscanner like these: [8] [9] [10] Joeldl (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] anti-semitism

I appreciate the comment but what can I do? I made a post at AN/I, maybe you could leave a comment there. I left a message at Jimbo's talk page, no response. One thing maybe we can do is start to keep a detailed record (edit differences) of disruptive editing and fringe pushing violations. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oops, you did it again

You wrote in an edit summary on the R&I article, "15:12, 18 March 2008 Ramdrake (Talk | contribs) (114,783 bytes) (Revert - it is the responsibility of the editor pushing for inclusion to gather consensus on the talk page once edits have been challenged.)", but then failed to follow it yourself by reverting my edit.[11] You are surely not that innocent. --Jagz (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your message on my Talk page, the material you twice removed from the article on 18 March had been in the article for over a month, including some that had been in the article for at least several months. --Jagz (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R&I article

Knock off the POV pusher rhetoric on the Talk page. You are using it as a personal attack. --Jagz (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If I'm a POV pusher then you are a POV pusher. --Jagz (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Jagz, Ramdrake is a good and conscientious editor, interested in neutrality and rigor. Unfortunately I would not apply these words to your contributions to the R&I article and talk page. On the talk page your contributions can at best be described as inflammatory and hardly ever display any good faith. Given your predisposition to pov-pushing and supporting these povs with citations from the popular press rather than reliable sources I think Ramdrake is simply calling a spade a spade. As Ramdrake says, you seem to have a good reputation regarding your edits to articles relating to the scouting movement. Why don't you stick to editing articles you actually seem to know something about instead of trying to push your personal prejudices in this encyclopaedia? Alun (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Race and IQ

Your discussion with nick Connolly helped me craft my first proposal for an article on the popular controversy (i.e. the topic is the controversy over nature versus nurture but the topic is not any actual debate over nature vesus nurture) ... or something like that. The title I gave it is only provisioal. But do you think you and Nick Conolly could work toether to make it a reality? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jagz' strategy is to get us bogged down on talk pages so no substantive work gets done. That is why I think your working on this article - not talk, the article itself - is the way to win. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jagz

My too but I am not sure how to phrase it/what to do. Certainly disruptive edits ... anyway, whatever you do I will support it. I am sick of this pattern of disrupting any constructive discussion, and when anyone calls him on it, he says he is being personally attacked. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, I did an AN/I and left a message at Jimbo's talk page last week and nothing came of any of it ... Slrubenstein | Talk 11:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support an RfC on this user's behaviour. It can't be difficult to find examples of his trolling and he must have been warned at least twice for his attitude on talk pages, so I think if you wanted to start an RfC it shouldn't be a problem. What do you think? Alun (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Just ignore him. Firstly the disruption caused is only enhanced by lengthy responses. Secondly he could be legit, loud protests of persecution is common behaviour among those who advocate a race-intelligence link. Thirdly, honestly I think we are nearly there and I'm worried that this will just start yet another sideshow - causing further disruption of the kind you think Jagz is causing.Nick Connolly (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the root of the problem is that some editors are opposing a legitimate discussion of the genetic hypothesis rather than me trying to promote it as fact or trying to rid the article of environmental hypotheses. Maybe this has been the main problem for years, I don't know. --Jagz (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The genetic hypothesis is a fringe viewpoint. It shouldn't and can't be discussed on equal footing with mainstream science, despite all your efforts to say the contrary.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You are allowed to state that a hypothesis is fringe in the article if you can back it up with a specific citation and I suggest that you focus your efforts on doing that instead of castigating me. Regardless of any fringe claims, the genetic hypothesis is notable and should be presented in the article. The genetic hypothesis has, I believe, been in the article for years and I expect it will continue to be in the article indefinitely. --Jagz (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It has been described dozens of times as racist science, and that is definitely fringe. Several such quotes have already been provided to you, but you chose to ignore them. You are entitled to your (dissenting) POV; however, you are not entitled to impose your POV on the other editors.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In case you really need a concrete cite, here's one from CNN:
The Pioneer Fund is infamous not only for its funding of classic eugenics research in the pre-World War II era, but also for continued funding of opposition to civil rights and racist science. The current Pioneer director is University of Western Ontario psychologist J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton is best known for his advocacy of a theory correlating genital size inversely with intelligence and morality and parsing this by race.
Found here--Ramdrake (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the link to the section. Now start editing.[12] --Jagz (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mediation request

can you write up a veru concise statement of the key issue(s) that need to be mediated, here? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] political scientist

Political scientist is better than pundit, which seemed a bit POV. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Pundit seems to carry a negative connotation. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence 2.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] To answer your question...

Your help in editing would be very welcome. On another note I read the Dysgenics article yesterday - ugh, I thought the race intelligence article had issues... I note you'd made some valiant attempts to get it on track. All of these article end up like a world-war battlefield; a muddy mess in which progress is random. Nick Connolly (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German Remarks

Hi there, I have warned this user about the remarks he/she has made on the article I have also told the editor to stop and have issued them with a final warning for the remarks. Chris19910 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope so too that it will work if it doesnt then I would leave it to one of the admins to block him indef and make sure that the account creation is blocked from that I.P address. Chris19910 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thule Society

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thule Society may be of interest.LeadSongDog (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] relations with nubia

i repeat give a valid reason why there should be a section about relations with nubia what does that have to do with the race of the egyptians now that this whole issue has been brough up--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Nubia is traditionally represented as a kingdom directly south of Egypt, whose people are also usually acknowledged as "Black" and several pharaohs seem to have claimed their roots from that region. I'd say that's reason enough not to exclude.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
re read your reason for why there should be a relations with nubia section,it does not matter if there were any nubian kings pryor to the 25th dynasty the article is about the race of the "egyptians" themselves not to point out if there were any nubian pharoahs because what does that have to do with the race of the egyptians,just as it does not matter there relationships with the ancient libyans, syrians,persians, greeks,minoans or people of punt etc etc--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is relevant in that it strongly suggests that the Egyptians were indeed what would be called by today's standards a racial mix. That is an important viewpoint in the debate. --Ramdrake (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
hello check out population characteristics--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That section seems to support that viewpoint also. Is that what you were saying?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ramdrake i dont care about a view point,but i think the population characteristics is a imporatant un biased section that gives a better idea about the racial population of the egyptians than having a section based on the relationship with nubia or any other relationship they had with in antiquity(in other words just because nubians were slaves in egypt does not make the egyptians not black like the nubians or just because they had a positive relationship with the nubians does not make the egyptians black either),that section is a double edged sword anyway and leads to innuendo about the race of the egyptians and about egypt being mixed race there is no doubt that egypt was mixed society but that does not mean everybody is a mixed race person either, but a relations with nubians might be good for the main article if there is not already one--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R&I article

If you are going to participate in the article, please do more than revert other people's edits and criticize them. You seem to be holding yourself out as some type of neutral party but it clear that is not the case. Being a supporter of egalitarianism does not automatically make you neutral. --Jagz (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • According to your recent edit summary, you didn't notice that I removed Murray from the sentence. --Jagz (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IQ article

Your recent edit summary, "It still doesn't belong here. Bring it to RfC if you think you'll get a different result.", is misguided. Please familiarize yourself with what should be done prior to requesting a RfC here: [13]. Also, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines on wiki-stalking so it does not become a problem: [14]. --Jagz (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean you must warn me against edit-warring? --Jagz (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have developed a pattern of reverting my edits in a manner that can perhaps be described as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Please stop it. --Jagz (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Dysgenics

Hi; I wanted to take this to your talk page because I can see that it's important to cultivate some sort of understanding. My first "general edit" wasn't a revert; I actually incorporated some suggestions made by Mrsadriankaur in that edit. The second time I gave it the same name so it would be clear that I was taking it back there.

I'll be frank in telling you that, while I may take a different position on the article, I have no problem with you or the edits you're making, and I really do think you can help improve the article. Rather, I'm tired of, and fed up with, Wsiegmund, who has been coming up with inconsistent complaints about the article for months in what really looks like nothing more than an attempt to bury it. There was a time when I thought little of Wikipedia; however, I have had positive experiences working on other articles, and my finding is that the assumption of good faith is critical to collaboration. I really don't like reverting or deleting material made by other users (see for instance Talk:Political_spectrum#Suggested_Rewrite) but be aware that I believe Wsiegmund's edits in dysgenics amount essentially to vandalism. Harkenbane (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I notice you have an interest in this topic, and I want to make sure that you know I am not going out of my way to be a jerk regarding my edits. I placed a version of the following message on the talk pages before I found that users have their own talk pages:

There appears to be some sensitivity with respect to this topic, which I think is due to an anthropomorphic bias. Dysgenics is a research topic in biology; the anthropological and sociocultural aspects are not central to the topic. The concerns listed in the heading paragraph belong lower in the text, as they apply only to the aspect of the term relating to homo sapiens.
The concept of dysgenics itself is really only at home in a discussion of genotype. Direct anthropomorphic considerations (of the sociopolitical aspects outlined in the article) are very crude constructions which do not hew to the precise biological use of the term. I think one danger is that, by focusing on the easily politicized extension of the term, we risk conflating an important biological concept with indirect sociological constructions. Next thing you know, biologists innocently researching fruit flies get implicated in fascism, eugenics, and gas chambers. So I agree that we need to make very careful use of these terms. These concepts, while connected to a degree, should be covered carefully.

I agree that the Lynn character you reference is a total nut; however, he is not representative of the biological field, but instead only of the fringe of social sciences. If you want an example of dysgenics applied directly to human populations that is not fringe social science, look over http://www.springerlink.com/content/y73202341630112v/. We have to obviously be very careful how these concepts are treated, as I mentioned above. I hope we can come to some sort of agreement on this issue, and make sure science articles in Wikipedia offer complete, unbiased information. It would be a good idea to sequester the fringe sociological aspects to subsections where disputes will not tarnish the biological discussion. 137.186.41.143 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, now I need to get used to being "officially" middle-aged. Alun (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sidis IQ

The 250-300 IQ was based on hearsay from his sister after he died. In any case, it seems that you now have a ratio IQ score listed together with a standard deviation for a deviance IQ score. --Jagz (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zoo

You reverted my removal of "important" and "basic" from Zoo saying in the Edit Summary "Those qualifiers seemed important. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia".

The sentence concerned is “Important basic duties of zoo keepers include daily cleaning and maintenance of animal enclosures and proper feeding of the animals”. This is a good example of words in a sentence that add nothing to its meaning (which has nothing to do with Simple Wikipedia, we are just taking about good English here). Remove “important” and “basic” and has the meaning of the sentence changed? I say it has not. Since the duties of a keeper consist of mainly cleaning, maintenance and feeding then what does “important” mean? And “basic” has no meaning at all.

In the sentence “Some colleges offer specific programs oriented towards a career in zoos“ I took away “specific” and you added it back. Try reading the sentence with specific removed and the meaning does not change. because “oriented towards a career in zoos” means specific so the addition of “basic” is tautology.

Other words that can almost always be removed are various, many, and currently. Please don’t reply (unless you so wish) because our minds are not likely to meet on this topic - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R&I paragraph

The last paragraph of the "Contemporary issues" section is substandard and I don't care who wrote it. Let's focus on trying to improve it. --Jagz (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my tone sounded annoyed in my comment to you. In fact I was annoyed, but unjustly. Related -- I don't have a clue what to say in response to SLR's tirade. I don't want to give him the impression that I concede his point, but I can't see any progress coming from further discussion. --Legalleft (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PETA euth stats

Hi - I like the way you adjusted this to include total numbers. It makes the figures easier to understand, which they certainly have to be considering how much attention they get!Bob98133 (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Kill Shelters

I think I added some of the criticism to the No Kill Shelter page. The first time I looked at it, it was just fluff about no kill. If I recall, some of it was even verbatim from Nathan Winograd's web page (the main proponent of no-kill) PETA seemed like the major detractor/antagonist in the kill/no kill debate, so I probably relied more on those pages than I should have. This is another hot-button article like the PETA page. If you can find ways to add better balance, please do. I did revert your minor addition about Thompkins though, just because they say they are no-kill (or trying to be) on their web site.Bob98133 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And as per your talk page, I'm fine with the reversion; I just wasn't aware of their individual stance.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R&I

Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've warned Rubidium37 about 3RR, but you need to be cautious as well. Dreadstar † 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering the long history of persistent uncivil and personal attacks, I've blocked Jagz for 24 hours. Dreadstar † 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Re strange

Of course you could be correct about these two users, but there's not a great deal of evidence for sockpuppetry. Getting convincing evidence for sockpuppetry is always difficult. When User:KarenAE first started editing I was convinced s/he was a sockpuppet of User:Lukas19 (this was also User:Thulean, but that was a legitimate name change [15]), but although I started a sockpuppet case, and although everyone who contributed to the case was of the opinion that KarenAE was probably Lukas19 the case was rejected due to a lack of hard evidence and a negative checkuser result (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lukas19). Of course eventually it was found that User:KarenAE and User:KarenAER were both socks of Lukas19 and they were banned due to Lukas19's ban by the arbitration committee (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM#Lukas19_banned). So sockpuppetry can be a very difficult thing to show convincingly. I tend to think this is a good thing, many editors do share similar opinions and beliefs, often editors are so wedded to their beliefs that they are only interested in pushing those beliefs, it's a matter of faith for them. I do share your concerns, but I'm not convinced a sockpuppet case will produce the desired result unless we get a clear checkuser match.

On the Jagz front, it appears his behaviour is becoming even more erratic than previously, I checked his contributions for yesterday and they are utterly unproductive and rather incoherent.[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] He displays all of the behaviour of a petulant child "throwing his toys out of the pram". I'm reminded of Violet Elizabeth Bott from Just William who, when she didn't get her own way, would threaten to "thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick" (she had a lisp). Still hang in there, any more of his childishness and he's bound to get a longer ban. Cheers. Alun (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


You might be interested in this] sockpuppet case regarding Zero g and Rhubidium37. Don't know if you want to add Jagz to the case? Might be worth a shot considering it's going to checkuser? All the best. Alun (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hello

Hello Ramdrake. I have decided I am going to try writing a new article on race and intelligence since the current one is so dreadful. If you have any suggestions, they would be gratefully received.

I saw your recent revert on the article, by the way, and I agree with you that it is self-evident that belief in a correlation between race and intelligence relies on an acceptance of those two assumptions. I have a feeling, though, that the 'cite' tags were there for:

  • a citation that the assumptions are controversial in their own right - which to be fair probably does need a citation, though it would be easy to find; and
  • a citation that the assumptions are questioned by 'a significant number of SMEs'; again, citing that shouldn't be a problem, though it is the sort of thing that should be cited.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I read it. --Plusdown (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blond

Kudos on your intelligent solution to the image issue in Blond. I wish I'd been smart enough to think of it! rewinn (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OK

Sorry about that, I wasn't aware that it was a direct quote. I'm quite ambivalent about this definition. I know it comes from Encarta, but it seems just plain odd to me. Because I'm a biologist the claim that "genetically well-adapted" members of a group of organisms would "decrease in the survival" seems at odds with any conventional understanding of selection. I think of it this way, a well adapted organism will always have an adaptive advantage compared to a less well adapted organism, indeed we usually see that all members of a population are well adapted, stable populations have adapted to their environment over the course of many thousands of generations and so as long as their environment remains unchanged, the will remain well adapted. In Drosophila species there is a phenotype with a vestigial wing that is used in breeding experiments, especially for students to study Mendelian genetics. Of course we select for these vestigial wing phenotypes dysgenically, but in the "wild" these individuals would probably not last long enough to reproduce because they cannot fly, they probably get gobbled up quite quickly. Interestingly enough in Drosophila behaviour we see that even in a controlled environment these individuals don't have very good reproductive success because part of Drosophila courtship behaviour is the "scisoring" of the wing towards the potential mate, and of course these poor little guys only have a small appendage to wave at their potential mate. In Drosophila biology size really does matter (at least in wings anyway)!! The dysgenic argument for human populations is that the environment has changed, and that traits that were previously selected for by the environment (e.g. "intelligence") are no longer under selection. This means that organisms that possess this trait no longer have an advantage over their competitors that do not have this trait, because the environment no longer confers an advantage. I think my view is a standard view of biological selection, but the Encarta quote doesn't really convey this meaning. Think of it this way.

Diagram attempting to illustrate this.
Diagram attempting to illustrate this.

If I have a culture of bacteria which contains a mixture of two types of bacteria, one with a resistance gene for the antibiotic ampicillin (a standard antibiotic used in clonal selection), the other type of bacterium doesn't possess this resistance. I plate part of this culture on an nutrient agar plate containing ampicillin and the rest on a plate with no ampicillin. The bacteria on the plate containing ampicillin all have the resistance gene, because the ampicillin containing environment selects against the bacterial cells that don't contain the resistance gene, they do not grow. The second plate is still a mixture of bacterial types because neither has a selective advantage. In the terms of "human dysgenics" the non-antibiotic plate is a dysgenic environment and the antibiotic plate is an eugenic environment. What they really mean is not that selection is against a trait, but that selection for the trait no exists in the environment. Of course the whole argument is a fallacy because we don't know the factors that select for human "intelligence" and there's no evidence that universal health care, universal suffrage, universal access to education, equal opportunities or the relatively low birth rate amongst the wealthy will have any effect on the intelligence of the population at all. Anyway I've whittered enough, I may have some sources that give a better definition of dysgenics as it is used by these wingbat pseudoscientists, I'll have a bit of a look through the literature I have at home. Take care. Alun (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI thread - Jagz

Hi Ramdrake I'm notifying you of this since it involves you and since you have been mentioned (if not by name) by Plusdown there--Cailil talk 00:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Hello! Are you interested in a serious Wikimeetup? --Creamy!Talk 01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the warning about my overly verbose responses. I know I can go on a bit, mainly it's down to trying to be specific and accurate about what I am trying to say. But you're right I should try to keep my responses shorter. I really don't hink Legalleft has got a leg to stand on, his contention of a synthesis is just plain daft, the cites I 'v included explicitly say the same as the article says, indeed I included quotes from these cites in the footnotes section of the article just so there was no doubt that what the article says is exactly what the lead says. Alun (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] when you have 20 minutes

can you read and comment here? I expressed a concern about the article, and dab and Pelle Smith misinterpret my words to mean the opposite of what I thought I was saying. So i either really am not expressing myself well, or something else is going on in the "discussion." I am not asking you to pick a side, but i am hoping you can read through it, identify the source of misunderstanding, and put the discussion back on track. thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 11:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)