User:Muntuwandi/archive1

hi.

Hi, I noticed you uploaded several photos from Tyler Sharp on Flickr (for example, Image:Albnistic boy sunburn.jpg from http://www.flickr.com/photos/tylersharp/429780163/). The image on the Flickr description page is CC-BY-SA-2.0; you, however, tagged it as CC-BY-SA-2.5. While this may seem like an insignificant difference, it is significant. Please take more care in the future. Thank you, Iamunknown 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Misconception
Hi Muntuwandi. Thanks for responding to my proposal. I believe you may be operating under a misconception and that my suggestion is more accurate than the current one. Length is not related to POV, a short lead that introduces a term, unqualified, and subsequently applies it to large sections of humanity is much more misleading. It is not my view, but a summation of the verifiable parts of the article. This is a subjective term, applied or adopted by people, it is next to meaningless in any practical sense. The exception is as a tool of repression, or resistance of the same. This is predominantly in the United States of America, I am hazarding a guess that this is where you live. That some american citizens accept the term is no doubt due to your country's history, including a war and some reprehensible legislation. That your media casually ascribes the term does not make it true and that fact should be noted. I notice that you use the term in an unqualified way, who do you mean when you say black people - how is this determined? Do you mind if we discuss it here rather than than cluttering up the talk page with debate. I am doing this out of consideration for yourself and other editors, I have no objection to moving the discussion there though. Regards ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍  contributions  15:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * better on th talk page since you are proposing changes to the article.Muntuwandi 16:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not asking for your permission, I am attempting to contribute to a consensus decision. Your continued use of the term remains unqualified. I believe you are not reading what I have written, rather you seem to have a very fixed and unresearched view on this. What series of questions would you ask to determine the 'blackness' of an individual. Please consider that this is a label that one can identify as, but that for the most part was applied to others by so called white people with devastating results. This may be POV, but it is the view of the majority of people and is WP:V. You afford the term some inherent legitimacy and that is at variance with nearly all desciptions of it by writers on the subject. This is elementary sociology and you need to provide some citations for your contradictory POV. See you on the talk page. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  17:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent single-origin hypothesis
Hope you don't mind I added a one liner on sexual selection to the end of your Physical Appearance section. Its a worthwhile comment that explains the otherwise incomprehensible and apparently huge differences in human features that have been the source of so much scientific and unscientific prejudice alike down through the ages. Keep up the good work: and many thanks for your substantial improvements to the article which I will now enjoy reading. Regards, Mattjs 06:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: your OPINION on the whole world being of mixed ancestry
If that's the case, what's your issue? Why not put them in the category if it indeed reflects the actual heritage of the group indicated. I undid the change based on fact. Relir 12:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

white hispanics article
Hello, I´m a Mexican guy and I think the same like you. The Mexican media is full of people of European appearance, and there are Mexicans like them(me, for example, I have brown hair and green eyes, but I consider myself as a mestizo, because I have native american ancestors)but the white people in Mexico are a minority, about only the 10%. Is really stupid, most of Mexicans are not white.

Fair use rationale for Image:King_taharqa.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:King_taharqa.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

great work
On you recent additions to Race and Intelligence, this article is creeping towards something that makes sense thanks to contributions like yours! futurebird 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again if you are going to add..
If you are going to add the information provide sources denying saying they are. XGustaX 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do not provide a source other wise disproving mine, then I will my sources still stand. XGustaX 01:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they havnt. I am sorry to say. They do mention the poltics behind it but the articles also clearly mention the science behind mtDNA and Y Chromosmal testing for only Native Americans. Not other people, which you seem to not be handling well. I know we are all mixed Muntuwandi and to be honest I think you are taking this too much at heart. I will not however stand for a science that can be racist. I will back down if you provide a relavant source disclaiming this of course. XGustaX 02:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have broken the 3RR
You have broken the 3RR. XGustaX 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In the future, please try not to edit war. Instead, engage in disucssion on article talk pages.   Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Iamunknown 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement
I would like to put this disagreement behind us. Please check the talk page for a compromise I sugguested and tell me what you think. Thank you. XGustaX 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I be honest with you Muntuwandi? I want to this to work out and I want you to really trust me. I am not really Argentine. Nor am I really Swedish. This is the truth. I do not like people to know who or what I really am online so I just made it up. I hope you can believe this, if not I will prove to you I am not. I do not speak Swedish and my Spanish is from Highschool. So please believe me when I am telling you honest truth. If you do not believe me we can chat on AIM yahoo or MSN you will see. Thank You. XGustaX 02:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Source
Can you give some more information about thius source. Is there a site or gropup that published it? Is there a repository it can be found it? Cna you give any ,ore information on this? Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One Indian
Since User:KnowledgeHegemony thinks there should only be one Indian in the gallery, I was wondering whether or not this picture you uploaded Image:Tamil man.jpg is of a Sri Lankan Tamil. If he is a Sri Lankan Tamil then using the picture could resolve User:KnowledgeHegemony's preference for using only one Indian picture.Dark Tea 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe he is from India.Muntuwandi 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page
We should move this conversation to here. So what seems to be problem exactlly? Etherroyal 01:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically everyone accepts that the populations in the americas are very much of mixed ancestry. The question is putting numbers to this knowledge. In the US it is widely known for instance that blacks have on average about 20% european admixture and that very few blacks have no european admixture. So why is it so difficult to make the same case for whites in Latin america. I did not anticipate that this information would provoke such hostile reception from some editors, furthermore the information is found on the official government website of the National Institute of Health which means the study has been taken seriously.Muntuwandi 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not just the Americas. It is pratically everyone in the entire world. I think thats the problem with your you are saying. I think you are misunderstanding their intentions. The reason it was removed was because it seems most people agree upon it. Maybe you should degeneralize and make the section more netural that way and cite sources that show everyone is mixed. I hope this helps. Etherroyal 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you see the article on race and genetics there is a whole section of how mixing has taken place all over the world. see Race_and_genetics and Race_and_genetics
 * I see. Okay. We'll let me be honest here. I am not sure I can help you. You seem to be very very passionate about this subject and I feel like if you really want help, you are proabably aren't going to like what I have to say. I think you should speak more generally of the subjects to be honest. Say how we are all mixed and leave it at that. Recent Admixture should proabably be removed altogether it doesnt really show how we are related. Etherroyal 02:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe i touched a nerve, I know that admixture or race mixing is always controversial, but it has hapened in the passed and it continues to hapen now. It is not only latin america that is mentioned. African admixture in white americans is mentioned too. Also admixture between europeans and Tasmanians, gene flow between europe and Asia, gene flow between asia and the americas, gene flow between europe and Africa. If you read any book on human genetics they do not ignore admixture. In fact this book The Evolution and Genetics of Latin American Populations is all about this subject. I honestly feel that some editors are very uncomfortable with this subject but it is teh history of latin america.Muntuwandi 02:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, to me they were just being honest. It is not just the history of Latin America, but as of us as Humans as well. I really dont think they are out to get you or are offended by your information. They just want to make the article best as possible. Like I said maybe you should degeneralize it. As you said Not only Latin America is mixed. Just try to not think about this too much. It is healthy you know it can lead to stress my friend. Most on the talk page seem to agree we are all mixed and we are all human beings. The sense of purity is so wrong in todays since it was discovered we all come Africa. But I really do not think they are out to get you or are super sensitive towards the subject. If they were I would step in. Etherroyal 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is of all the admixture and gene flow scenarios why pick on one in particular, argentina. that is what is disappointing, because it gives the impression that argentina is too special to have any admixture study. Muntuwandi 03:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think they are picking Argentina as the "one exception" for say they many are saying its us in general, several have admitted on the talk page that we are all mixed, which is going back to what I am saying. haha, don't you think your overacting? No one ever admitted nor do I think anyone believes that. Argentina is human too. Etherroyal 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible error in the table you just inserted in the race and Intelligence talk page
The line for the total population of Asia in 2150 reads 561 million, an 85%+ decrease from the previous point. Possible error? Please let us know.--Ramdrake 23:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:Afro brazilian albino pride.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Afro brazilian albino pride.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Afro brazilian albino pride.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Afro brazilian albino pride.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps attempt to contact the Flickr user to see if s/he will change the license. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Next time, please upload it to Commons instead. On Commons, you can tag the image with flickrreview and a bot, admin, or trusted user will review the image to confirm that the licensing is correct. That way, even if the flickr user changes their licensing, we can still use the image. -- Big ΔT 13:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)"
 * From the image talk page:
 * "When it was uploaded it had the correct license. It seems the author may have recently changed it. How does one proceed in such a situationMuntuwandi 14:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is no way to verify that this image was licensed under a compatible licence, and as it is currently licensed under a non-commercial licence it has been deleted. mattbr 14:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing edits by others
You know, just because you and I have differing views on racial issues, doesn't mean what I am saying is a "violation" of anything. I have never alleged that you did either. Why support the trollish comments of the other editor? He's instigating a lot of nonsense, so shouldn't he be put in his place? Please look into it. Oh and don't erase what is written here. I think that would speak for itself as a violation of WP:CIVIL, because I am being polite and the erasure would not be. 68.110.8.21 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Joseph greenberg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Joseph greenberg.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Joseph greenberg.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Joseph greenberg.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Angr 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalization
Dont vandalize my edits again. KarenAER 14:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Information
Hi, please do not delete information without first discussing on the talk page, as you did to Negroid. Doing so is detrimental to an article, and may scare editors wanting to contribute away. Several editors are currently working on making the article more informative, and if you have relevant information to add, then by all means do so. Thanks, --Nordic Crusader 05:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning
Just a reminder that you are not exempt of the 3RR rules by reporting someone else at the same time (you reverted more than three times too). I would appreciate if you and the user above can work out your differences without the need to edit war. Best regards, -- Asterion talk 10:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked User:Nordic Crusader for breaching the 3RR rule once again after he was warned by another admin. Regarding your question on my talk page, I do not think you should ever breach the 3RR rule yourself even if you think the other party is engaging on disruption. There are many ways to deal with content disputes and continuosly reverting is not one of them, in my opinion. If in doubt, next time, I suggest you you make your case on WP:AN and explain why you think you the other party is being disruptive and warrant some response. Thanks, -- Asterion talk 11:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As are you, Muntuwandi. --Nordic Crusader 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack in Talk:Negroid
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordic Crusader (talk • contribs) 07:10, 18 July 2007

Talkpage Blanking
Hi Muntuwandi, I notice you blanked your talk page. Please don't do this, instead see Help:Archiving a talk page on how to archive your talk page, as blanking can lead to unwanted warnings etc. --Nordic Crusader 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.