User talk:Dark Tichondrias/Archive 3

European-American
By your logic regarding Christina Aguilera been Eropean-American, then almost every latin america could also be considered european-american. Correct?, by the way notice that I haven't changed anything in the articles, i'm just asking. Cjrs 79 01:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright
Hi Dark Tichondrias. Please stop adding copyrighted pictures to the Asian people article (or any other). It is not fair use to use these pictures in articles which aren't about the people they depict. It goes against Wikipedia's copyright policy. They need to be removed or replaced with free pics. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

your self-portrait on Asian people
it makes us look unreliable the same way your drawings of Asians on the Asian American page made us look unreliable. The art looks unprofessional. --Lukobe 00:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you put it back, someone else is just going to take it off. --Lukobe 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tripartite Asian and Bipartite Asian
I'm looking at Google hits for "tripartite asian". There are only 238. They seem to fall into these categories:
 * Your uses in Wikipedia and mirrors. Not usable as references.
 * Your own website.
 * ILO Tripartite Asian Regional Seminar. It's not clear what "Tripartite" means here as it's listed only as a book title, but I can't find evidence that it's the meaning you are using. Maybe the seminar has three parts.
 * References to an alliance of Russia, India, and China. This is not the meaning of EA/SEA/SA that you're using.
 * Someone's blog where they appear to be talking about a group of three friends.

"bipartite asian" gets only 7 hits.
 * your Wikipedia usage
 * two-part Asian and African musical instruments exhibition
 * spam sites with nonsense text.

I have to conclude the words are neologisms (Avoid_neologisms)and original research (WP:OR). --JWB 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Attitude
By the way, User:Dark Tichondrias, I must remark that your attitude is very "WASPY", doing everything only "in accordance" to everything, and pretending to be "civil"- thinking that you are taking some sort of "ethical", "high road". That's not a "personal" attack, is it? Pretending to follow some kind of convention while being overly defensive about nothing may reveal some kind of guilt or pathology on your part. Why so angry and defensive? I think the discussion pages should be for issues not fully discussed. ie. for instance, why you are insistant on how the Asian people page has to conform to your standards, on not to others. And I must remark, that anonymous edito'rs comments on the Asian page was just silly and uncalled for, and not specifically aimed at anyone. AND YET, YOU interpreted it as a "personal attack"? What kind of pathology are you experiencing? Maybe you are guilty of something. Le Anh-Huy 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What Le Anh-Huy said is my reply as well.--D-Boy 04:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Dark Tichondrias, please, let's come to a consensus on issues, and please don't spread your original research around Wikipedia. --Lukobe 16:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

three-region map
The three region map illustrates the point of the section called who calls themself Asian in the Asian people article.
 * It doesn't really add to the article, though. Sometimes illustrations are unnecessary. --Lukobe 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

watching users
Hi there, Just curious why you're "watching" us... --Lukobe 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello? --Lukobe 19:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Some users edits are more watch-worthy.--Dark Tichondrias 19:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice way of putting it :) --Lukobe 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack on MFD against Nathan
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — The King of Kings  04:11 June 25 '06

For the record.
For the record, I'm bi (I can go either way relationship-wise) but asexual (don't care about sex - it is not a big part of my life, nor will it ever be). I neither like nor dislike anal sex. I don't care about it, but that shouldn't be read as a dislike (it shouldn't be read as a like either, I just don't see the appeal). You get the idea.

However, this should not be read as: "I don't like it, I don't want anything to do with it, so I allow that to affect my decisions on Wikipedia." — Natha  n  ( talk ) 04:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The MfD is especially not for that. Please re-read WP:MfD. The MfD/AfD/anything "for deletion" is only a discussion about whether something should be deleted/kept/archived somewhere/userfied/etc. All that is required from you is either keep/delete/etc and a brief (brief! not extensive! not three-four paragraphs, brief) rationale. I don't think you're getting the idea so please, please read WP:MfD again. Thank you. — Natha  n  ( talk ) 06:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Asiaphile site
http://www.xanga.com/cec32

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/369114013/football-season.html

"It seems that I've had the honor of having a new title bestowed upon me recently. You can see just what that is here at this chick's site in her Oct 12th entry. She's the leader of an adorable blogring composed mainly of exotic little sex kittens entitled "STOP FETISHIZING US ASIANS" whose members claim that they "are tired of being FETISHIZED" and want to know that they're hot as "individuals" and are NOT "exotic little sex kittens" (Reading that one had me rolling on the floor). If this sexy bunch (35 members strong, so far) of Oriental dolls only knew just how arousing they really are by denouncing guys like me I'm sure they would immediately shut their blogring down. However, I sure hope that doesn't happen. In fact....I hope I've helped their recruitment. Mmmm!"

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/390745403/a-poll-for-those-of-us-who-have-a-thing-for-asian-girls.html

"A few weeks ago I mentioned the sexy leader of an adorable Xanga blogring mostly composed of exotic little sex kittens (I say "mostly" because there are currently two male members) entitled "STOP FETISHIZING US ASIANS", who honored and distinguished me with a very special title after I left a comment on her site. Well, recently I was viewing the group's membership (35 strong, so far) and was having a difficult time deciding which one of these Far Eastern cuties is the most appealing (in a strictly carnal sense) and decided that I would create a poll for the visitors to my site to respond to."

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/429780864/a-rarity-and-yes-im-still-reading-the-above.html

"It's not too often that I post pictures of NON-Asian chicks in my entries here..."

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/452937793/the-chamber-of-horrors.html

"I was recently asked (in an adorable Far Eastern accent) by a young cutie to have her image and name removed from an entry of mine at this site..."

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/472508031/new-poll.html


 * North Korean women and South Korean women are NOT different ethnicities. It is a political division.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.124.114.26 (talk • contribs).

Hi, Dark Tichondrias
Hi, Dark Tichondrias, thanks for the feedback and advice on my talk page. I have been enjoying your edits at the Asian fetish article, and think you and several of the newer editors are usually right on target.

Yes, I called User:Wzhao553 a "racist," on another user's talkpage not only because he promotes racial segregation in the point of view promoted in his edits, but also because he has previously attacked editors like user:Gnetwerker because of their race. I also called him a "liar" when he said he had never heard of anyone but white males claim that promotion of the "Asian fetish" concept was a means of promoting racial segregation, when he had discussed exactly such an article by an Asian-American male just a short time ago. Indeed, this article is still linked at his pet project, the Asian fetish article. (I would have to go back and check, but I believe this is also your position on the issue?)

I believe the evidence supports the use of both of those labels, and, regardless, I think that you can see I did not mean them to be baseless personal attacks, but to point out the actual behavior of the editor. I trust that Etiquette does not prevent us pointing out the truth, even if it is sometimes not very pleasant.

I am a white male who is very happily married to an Asian woman, and would do it all over exactly the same way again if I had to. I was turned away from the article by the negativity I encountered during my short stay there both from editors like WZhao553 and from the repusively anger- and hate-filled nature of so many of the sources I read there. I have encountered very little of this sort of attitude in real life, and prefer to avoid negativity and work on the positive whenever I can.

Anyway, I hope you keep up the good work on the article, and thank you again for the feedback. Human Fetishist 23:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, also, Dark Tichondrias. I want to compliment you on your dedication to the article asian fetish.  Here is a link to WZhao533's blog, in case you're interested.  If you read it, I would be curious as to your thoughts about his TV show ideas.  Logoi 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice
Hi,

I have closed the MfD on your user subpage "Userboxes/Receive Anal Sex." The result was no consensus/default keep. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypothesis
I'm sure you knew when you changed the article name to "asian fetish theory" that you will inevitably get some dissent. Why not go all the way and call it the "asian fetish hypothesis" or "asian fetish conjecture"? It's entirely untested, so I don't think it should enjoy the status of being a theory yet. Perhaps there could be a separate article "Asian fetish (politics)" that locates the term in its politicized context. Logoi 03:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of changing the name to hypothesis, but it seemed more standard to use the word theory. I understand that since it has not withstood any critical analysis it should not be called a theory, but I felt the term theory was more used in standard practice. It should really be called a hypothesis. I think hypothesis is more fitting than conjecture because conjecture is not a standard term. If they are synonymous in meaning, then I think hypothesis would be better. I would like it if it were changed to hypothesis. You could move it.--Dark Tichondrias 05:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

About Image:USA Census 2000 logo.gif
There are a few minor problems with what you stated on this logo. First, this is a public domain image because it is a work of the U.S. Government. Fair use does not apply, and this image is therefore free. Second, the preferred format for this image is PNG, not JPEG. The JPEG format degrades logos like this severely. It is great on photos and 3D images where changes from pixel to pixel are mostly smooth, but abrupt changes like those on logos are bad for JPEG. Third, this image should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons because it is a work in the public domain. Fourth, you need to specify the source of the image. Jesse Viviano 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Angry Asian man
Hi, not that I disagree or agree with the article, but i feel that the page was incomplete, and that section was discribing a WEBSITE about Angry Asian Males, rather than the stereotype of the Angry Asian male. The paragraph summarised the website, but I feel that the website would have been fine as a link at the bottom of the page and is not significant or directly relevant enough in defining the Angry Asian Man to warrant a summary. The site that was summarised, although probably a good example of the stereotype, was made by a few individuals for humourous purposes and can be classified as anecdotal at best. Perhaps if you were to quote something, it might be a more landmark article, study, or essay rather than that particular site. Sunawave

No
No. When people are ignorant and say stupid things, I have to tell them. As we say in my country: It is charity to teach those who do not know.

I would seriously consider changing your userpage stuff on you enjoying anal sex. It doesnt seem very serious...

--Ismael76 19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument that the exception to the policy No personal attacks is when the user is actually ignorant could be said of all personal attacks. There are more civil ways to argue against other user's arguments than saying they are ignorant.


 * The template survived AFD due to Wikipedia not being censored. I'm sure this personal information does not detract from my arguments.--Dark Tichondrias 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to censor your template. I was giving you advice. Such details of your intimacy are not the best way of introducing yourself on wikipedia. Its a bit freaky... But thats just my opinion. I have nothing against anal sex.:-) --Ismael76 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Asians
Hey, thanks for all the picture contributions to the article! Articles are no fun without pictures. --Drenched 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not stop on the Black People article.
Please don't give up. I wish to know more about how you feel about this. Please talk on my user talk page. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your rationale for removing my contribution???
Dark Tichondrias, I'm prepared to argue for the inclusion of this piece authored by me which you deleted for some reason:

''Counter-criticism. These stereotypes are held by many Asian American men (AAM) to have the malicious effect of setting them back in an unfathomable range of social domains, including work relations, schools, intimate relations and the service industry, in which indisputable trends and mounting anecdotal accounts of racial prejudice point to racial stereotypes. With reference to the markedly low incidence of interracial dating involving AAM and white women [14] [15], it is thought that white American women have been suggestible to these stereotypes and thereby deterred in having relations with AAM. A similar line of reasoning exists in relation to the phenomenal rate of out-dating among Asian American women, in particular to white American men. This is thought to affirm the privileging of the dominant in-group, concomitant to the preclusion of AAM via processes of media representation.''

It's a coherent, cogent piece of writing and is no less relevant than is a lot of the content preceding it. Importantly it contextualizes the problem of Asian stereotypes and places an interesting spin on the topic. Moreover, it contests the Criticism section, which, from a scholarly point of view is valuable because it further problematizes the issues in question. What the overall article neglects to consider are the EFFECTS of racial stereotypes. It is no more than a listing of various stereotypes without this.


 * I felt some of the statements which are given as facts need a citation from a qualified source in accordance with Reliable sources and Verifiability. The first part says "held by many Asian American men" when the sources only show a select few writers expressing this view.  The Verifiability needs "reputable publishers" for this statistic to include this claim.  The most pertinent reason why I feel the paragraph should not be in the article is because the  Verifiability policy only allows for "reputable publishers", but Asian American professors are not reputable in psychology.  It is part of their field to catalogue stereotypes and count interracial marriages, but it is not part of their field to interpret stereotypes to cause the disparity.  In this matter they are unqualified to be a reliable source.  A psychologist must be cited who claims stereotypes cause the dating disparity for the main part of the paragraph to meet Wikipedia's policy.  If you find a psychologist who claims this, then her/his name should be included along with the Asian American professor.  On the other hand, if the opinion of the Asian American professor is mentioned as just his opinion rather than stated as a fact, then it meets Verifiability.--Dark Tichondrias 11:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I forgot the Verifiability policy demands the source be a "reputable publisher", so even if the Asian American studies professor had his name added, the paragraph would still be unacceptable.--Dark Tichondrias

White pride revert
Hi there. I just thought I'd leave a message to explain why I reverted your changes to White Pride. The principal reason is that, by changing "White-European" extraction or "Caucasian" extraction to something like Caucasian American (without the quotes), you give credence to the existence of "races", which is something that geneticists et al dispute. (I.e., there's more genetic variation within "races" than there is between them.) "Races" are only useful from the perspective of social analysis, with history in mind - because it is true that certain "races" are cultural groups who have been advantaged/disadvantaged socioeconomically primarily on the basis of the legacy of "race". But, by removing the quotes, your edits vaguely legitimate racialism - and suddenly the article is not NPOV anymore - it implicitly advocates some of the arguments of the White Priders. (Furthermore, limiting White Pride to hyphenated-Americans is inaccurate - the opening sentence stresses primarily in the United States, although there exist many sympathizers in Canada, Western Europe and Australia.) - Maggie --64.229.64.62 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that changing "White" to White American makes the racial term imply genetics, but I do agree that White pride is not limited to USA.--Dark Tichondrias 21:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked at the White Pride article again and I originally added White American and European American because they were specifically in the United States context. I still do not see how removing the quotes makes the term more legitimate.  I feel that by not specifying an American context, the term White seems to transcend culture, giving it more credence.  Could you elaborate on how linking the racial term to its American context increases its legitimacy?--Dark Tichondrias 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My wording (for it is mine) is very, very careful: "White-European" extraction. The key word is "extraction". With the quotes, the implication is: "White-European" is a shorthand term for a cultural group (extraction/ancestry/derivation/mythology, etc.) without genetic/scientific basis.' whereas White American very baldly means White people from America. All the subtlety is lost. It is also factually incorrect, for the reasons agreed above. Read the Talk page on the White Pride article for evidence of the very fragile compromise the current text represents, and the kind of racist, homophobic etc. nonsense I've had to put up with in rewriting it. - Maggie --64.229.64.62 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The White and Caucasian articles include more people than just Europeans in their scope, so I think the group should be changed to European American. The term "European American" does not solidify itself as a race, unlike the other two terms.--Dark Tichondrias 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But it's just plain wrong to suggest that, say, a Scottish proponent of White Pride is "celebrating the heritage of persons of European American extraction". Ditto Canada, although there's an argument to be made for a term like "Italian American" or "African American" also applying to individuals from other North or South American countries (thereby making most Columbians "Spanish American"). So...no. - Maggie --64.229.64.62 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unregistered yes, but troll? I resent that. Take a look at my other contributions - particularly on music-related articles. I provide a lot of useful content, and am, in point of fact, smarter than you, Avsn. -Maggie --64.229.64.62 14:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * DT: Thanks for perservering. Your most recent edit to White Pride was a good one. I'm mulling over what to do with the term "race traitors" - it's not recognized as a cohesive cultural group by anyone but racists (unlike homosexuals or jews, etc.) so it makes me feel uncomfortable to give it such play in the opening paragraph, as if it were a legitimate term. Instead I've used "certain other groups" to signal down to the section on Usage, where I've put the term, with an explanation of what the term is, who uses it, and cetera. Thanks. - Maggie --64.229.64.62 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I got the message, now stay off my page
DT: I removed the "personal attack" from your page. As to the "policy" you quote, it is not official. I prefer to keep my user page cleaned up. STAY OFF MY PAGE! Whatever message you wanted to send has been sent. Avsn 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DT: Once again, Stay off my user page. I now long ago removed the "attack" you were worried about, and the policy you quote is not official. Avsn 15:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Census

 * Hi - not sure I understand the point of the template you just added to the census page. Can you please explain on the article's talk page how it helps.  Thanks - sorry I am confused.--Arktos talk 11:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Having sought a second opinion I will be removing the template from the article and proposing it for deletion. Regards--Arktos talk 23:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Australian Census Broad Groups
Template:Australian Census Broad Groups has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Arktos talk 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oceanian
Hi. The reference you added then removed to Pacific Islander uses "Oceanian" as a "cultural" term, not racial. It is quite broad, and includes anybody of any race who identifies as culturally from somewhere in Oceania, including Australia and New Zealand. For example, someone who is white, and ethnically from Europe/Britain, but is second (or more) generation Australian-born and identifies themselves as Australian would count as Oceanian. So do Australian Aborigines, New Zealanders, and people from other Pacific Islands, indigenous or not. Not sure if this is helpful or not. The term is used by the ABS for statistical purposes, but is not a commonly-used term otherwise. --Scott Davis Talk 13:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity in Australia

 * It really is different here. Hence I don't feel comfortable at all about your assertion  	The 2006 Australian Census did not ask for respondent's race but for their national origin group, because the Australian Census Bureau felt that bunching together data on separate ethnic groups made the data less useful.   How do you know what the ABS (Not the census brureau ioncidentally) felt the ref doesn't tell you that.  And moreover why on earth do you think Indigenous peoples of the Americas would be statistically significant in an Australian context?  I will revert your edit.--Arktos talk 09:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I fixed the reference to the ABS document where they state they are trying to not bunch together ethnic groups because the data would be less meaningful. The reason that "Peoples of the Americas" needs clarification is because the nations in North and South America are not thought of as a single people. Because the citizens of North and South America do not think of each other as a people, when they read this category they will assume that it refers to the indigenous peoples of the Americas.--Dark Tichondrias 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a personal attack - I commented on your content exhaustively, including that once you had been advised of the organisation's name you continued to mislabel it - how do you think that reflects on your research abilities?  Your edits have misquoted references and you are pushing an inappropriate POV.  Please review WP:NPA which states: Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.  Your persistent mislabelling of the organisation is wrong and together with misquoting references, thus casts doubt on the credibility of anything you write.--Arktos talk 10:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that calling a statement wrong is not a personal attack, but that is not what you said on the edit you made here.--Dark Tichondrias 10:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What I said was: There is no "Australian census bureau - there is an Australian Bureau of Statistics - misnaming organisations is inaccurate and casts doubt on the accuracy of anything else you have written. This was after having pointed out to you once already that you had got the name wrong.  Coupled with the other errors you had made, I don't regard it as a personal attack but a strongly worded statement that your edits on the Australian census article lack credibility - it wasn't after all just one slip.  I do not resile from that position.  You want credibility, you need to make more accurate contributions.--Arktos talk 11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * PS the "here" link above doesn't point to an edit of mine but your comment - your comment does not thus make sense!--Arktos talk 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The link points to a discussion on your edit which includes a link to your edit.--Dark Tichondrias 11:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you don't link to my edit, then you should say something like but that is not what you said on the edit I referred to here. Need to watch that detail and think are you saying what you mean to say.  In this case yet again you weren't.--Arktos talk 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Policy Violations
You got me. I suppose Wikipedia should take action against me. Just like they have done against EditingOprah for sockpuppeting and misrepresenting my position. Oh that's right they didn't DO ANYthing. He's still around still doing his silly crap. His page shows no citations, no action, no warnings. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)