User talk:Futurebird/Archive 1

Form constant
Thank you so much for contributing your graphic to form constant! I've been looking for an image for some time. —Pengo 07:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hill District?
Hey - I looked at some maps, and it doesn't look like Carnegie Mellon is adjacent to the Hill District. I therefore removed it from the article. Can you show a good map of Pittsburgh neighborhoods that shows CMU being adjacent to the Hill District? --Matt 22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it isn't adjacent. I just remember spending a lot of time there when I was in school and it seemed so close by. Downtown pittsburgh isn't adjacent to it either, come to think of it. The Hill District is between downtown and University of Pittsburgh

It's like this:

NORTH SOUTH
 * Squirrel Hill
 * CMU
 * University of Pittsburgh
 * Hill District
 * Downtown

futurebird 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the reply. The maps that the city has are pretty bad because they don't show streets within their neighborhood boundaries, so I wasn't 100% sure I was right. Cheers --Matt 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Urban
It appears that this anon ip has only made 3 edits - all on that page! I'll keep an eye on it, and report it for admin attention if they start to stray. A nice tool to check this is. Just enter the username or IP and it comes back with the edit history (get's pretty slow if there's more than 5000 edits). SkierRMH 12:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * okay thanks.--futurebird 12:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tompkins Square Park Police Riot
Hi - just curious, why did you put this in "alleged police brutality" when the city itself found police brutality in its investigation? Alleged means "declared but not proven" - the city proved it. Before I remove it as a category, I wanted to find out why you put it there. Thanks --DavidShankBone 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it causes endless debate there are no categories for outright brutality, even in clear cases like this. one. Even having a category for NYPD brutality has proven to be controversial! I think this is the best we can do. Please weigh in at the discussion about deleting this category here: Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 6 --futurebird 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

NYC photos
Hi Futurebird - Thanks for your message. The photos under the 'culture' heading of the NYC article have been changed several times. There are intermittent complaints that the photos in the NYC article are too Manhattan-centric. This was one motive behind selecting the PS 1 photo (which is also a much higher quality photo than the poorly exposed, badly framed shot of the Met). I take your point about the Met. The important thing is that the 'culture' section not become a listing of museums. NYC's culture is not the dead stuff of neo-classical monuments. There absoloutely must be at least one photo of something other than a museum. Wv235 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

to do list?
I might be wrong on this, but shouldn't that be posted on the talk page instead of the main article? --Kukini 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're correct. It's not on the main article is it? futurebird
 * Thanks. I think one significant issue we will have on that page is neutrality. There are widely converging views of the causes of poverty. One route might be to separate the causes into a separate page with each point of view posted only when verified with citations. What do you think? --Kukini 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds great!futurebird 21:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might want to create that page before deleting anything off the lead page, to avoid further "edit wars."--Kukini 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note, even if you are going to create a seperate fork article for causes of poverty (which sounds like a good idea), it is very important that the Poverty article includes a summary of information on that topic (as well as a wikilink to the seperate article), as the highest article on a topic (in this case, Poverty), should give an effective overview of all approaches to the topic, while pointing the way to more "in depth" approaches elsewhere. (see also my point on Religious Poverty below) Robotforaday 14:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
To WikiProject Human rights. Just dig right in! If you should need assistance, please don't hesitate to ask...NinaOdell | Talk 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Black people
There is the Talk:Black people pageMuntuwandi 05:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just watch the page. I have deleted quite a bit, and am looking for more ways to trim it (Lexical Definitions and the Bible stuff have my attention). So I noticed that a cut I had made managed to sneak back in, that's it (OED's authority does not extend to the most modern meanings of words). But thanks for noticing. I occasionally revert vandalism as well. Jd2718 05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just read your user page. I suspect we know each other. I think I taught classmates of yours the summer before you started your current career, if that makes any sense. Jd2718 05:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't guess who you are... Well, best anyway.futurebird 13:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I could be confused, but you had Carl the first summer? I was the other guy. And if I am completely off, best anyhow! Jd2718 06:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message on Wikipedia Project Gender Studies
Hi Futurebird, I don't know if there is a Race neutrality project. Project Countering Systemic Bias might be the closest thing to one though. I have had a look at the page and I believe you are correct to question this article, and to highlight the dispute. Have you RfC'd it? I'm going to add my 2cents to the talk page.--Cailil 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Futurebird, I've requested page protection and some help with our IP user friend. Please don't get drawn into an edit war with them. Admins will sort it out shortly--Cailil 05:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks! --futurebird 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetic views on race
Hi Futurebird, I noticed that you tagged this article as contradicting the Black people article. It would be a good idea to explain why you think these two articles contradict each other on Talk:Genetic views on race so we can address the issue. All the best. Alun 07:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Black history project
Heya, futurebird -- thanks for the lj comment and the wiki comment! I am reluctant to take the lead on this myself, being a white guy and I have serious problems with white folks heading up things that focus on black folks. I would support and work on such a project, but I don't think I am the one to put it together personally. --Kynn 16:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
The article was created using material from two other articles, IQ and Intelligence and public policy. Although I had created a large part of this health material it also have had several other authors.Ultramarine 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Conditional keep?
Regarding this mess: I'm really glad that you're about to acknowledge the sensitivity of this topic. But, something about the tone of your post made me think that maybe you don't think that it is important to take objections to these types of graphics seriously. Perhaps, I'm wrong and misjudging your intentions, but there is a whole lot at stake here. It's not just the shape of the curve, it's also the age of the data (26 years old), the multiple sources used in one graphic (bad statical practice), the limited geographic scope, who funds this type of research, and the implicit intentions of this kind of work. The last one is, of course the hardest to 'prove.' I didn't believe it either when I first started studying this topic. Most mainstream research, thankfully, is "tolerably" unbiased, if it was published in the last ten years or so. I wish you would reconsider your vote. -- futurebird 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Futurebird: I'd rather discuss this topic here on your user page since this seems to be a topic that is dear to your heart. I'm an R&D engineer (and scientist at heart). I think that no subject should be too sensitive to address in an unbiased, scientific way. As I said, if there's better data available on the subject, let's see it. Do you have better data at hand? I'm sure that out there somewhere, is reliable data demonstrating that engineers — as a class — are more socially inept than other occupations. It smarts a little for me, but I think it would be fascinating to see a good graph on the subject. I once found a statistic that waitresses at short-order-cook-type diners were most likely to smoke and aerospace engineers were least likely. Interesting stuff; I'd like to see the whole list.


 * I thought, when I cast my vote, that I might get dragged into a "race" dispute. I was actually surprised by how quickly your appeal for me to change my vote arrived. The statement accompanying my vote accurately reflects my reasoning. My views are simply that: my views, and are likely representative of only a limited number of other people. I feel strongly about free speech and truly believe that the answer to "bad speech" is "better speech." I shudder at the notion of suppressing scientific inquiry just because it is a socially charged topic. I think the proper thing to do is have vigorous debate on the subject and to sit back and see how the votes come out in the wash. I "believe" in the Wikipedia way of doing things. It's an impressive project and it's fascinating to watch how a social system self-regulates itself using purely democratic methods. Amazing.   Greg L 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is going to sound, perhaps, overly militant and liberal, but what your asking for is for a group of people who have been systematically oppressed economically and socially to defend themselves against the majority's low opinion of their intelligence. I have no problem with this data being presented, In fact I think there should be more research in to the cause of the IQ gap. But it must be held to the highest possible standards. So even small inaccuracies are unacceptable. It must be written and discussed with some sensitivity and perspective for the historical baggage of racism. It seems that, due to my rather relentless objections, they have created a new graphic, that is frankly, is a lot better. They have removed the other curves which were based on speculation and junk science and now we can talk about why it is that a group of black people scored lower than a group of white people on a test 26 years ago. We can talk about what that test was testing, was it intelligence? And to get to this point of being able to ask the right questions you saw what I had to go through. Thanks for responding. I'm not out to censor, but I do insist that people get their facts straight about these matters. If you just look in to the history of Eugenics you'll understand why I'm so paranoid. There was a time when black people weren't even consider to be real humans! And it was not all that long ago. And for some people it isn't over.


 * PS. I don't blame you for not getting involved. This stuff is contentious and a mess, but I guess it's what we need to grow through to iron out the errors of racism and seek the truth.futurebird 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. I understand where you're coming from. Greg L 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for saying hello. Believe it or not, it's not the other editors, the ID crowd, that worry me so much. The closest example to illustrate what I mean that I see from what you've worked on is the "alleged police violence", used to describe something that was verified by investigation. "Alleged" is not the right word, because it implies unproven, but the sensitivity is such that it is felt necessary. I just feel that not misleading people is very important, and the NPOV policy seems to support that, but somehow the perception of bias and lack of sensitivity remains. Trishm 02:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Notsame.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Notsame.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just using as an example on a discussion about deleting another image. If it could stay up for a week that would be great. Then it can be removed. It's not for use in article content. We were trying to see if the bell curves in the source for the image for deletion were identical or not. Only the actual image from the source could be used to do this. I think that's good for one week of "fair use" then trash it. Can we do that?futurebird 06:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I tagged it as not having a source partly because it really doesn't have a source listed, but also because this tag will make it eligible for speedy deletion in a week (and places it in an appropriate category). So if everything is just left alone, the image will be gone in seven days. —Bkell (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Beauty
My apologies for using rollback without edit summary. I can see absolutely no good reason for splitting part of Black pride off to Black is beautiful. It is better to have one reasonable article than two closely related stubs. If you disagree, I suggest you discuss the matter at talk:Black pride first. -- RHaworth 07:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Race and intelligence
Please bear in mind that Wikipedia talk pages are not an open forum for discussion of the article topic, but only for article content. Discussion of the article topic should be placed elsewhere. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the image on my talk page that you've mistaken for a KKK flag is actually a deleted image from the Counter vandalism unit that I've not bothered to fix. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Well, that makes me feel a little better! You have no idea how shocked I was to see that thing!futurebird 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the image on my talk page. Anyway, re: the Race and intelligence talk page issues. The reason I removed the discussion is that it seems to me to be more about the moral implications of Wikipedia containing this information at all than to the point of exactly what should be in the article. Now, I don't typically care about what goes on in talk pages (but this is certainly not the first time I have removed comments from talk pages due to their being irrelevant to the article content), but since this article is so hotly contested, it is wise to keep the talk page organized for several reasons.

Most importantly, people who want to find out what the basis for the template is need to be able to find the relevant discussion quickly. More generally, people navigating the talk page for discussion relevant to the article and its various disputes ought not have to wade through peripheral discussion that doesn't belong there in the first place. This article has already survived multiple AfDs, so the proper place for discussions on the Wikipedia policies that require its inclusion would be the mailing list (for sure), or maybe the village pump (optional, I don't read that much). I can assure you that you will encounter no attempts from me to suppress discussion on the moral value of this article in either of those places (although I might take time to participate), and it's probably more likely that you will draw attention to your cause by appealing to a broader outside audience anyway.

I'm interested in engaging in dialogue on this topic with you, but I'm balancing my role as an administrator with my role as an editor here. Foremost among all objectives, we must stop the chronic and seemingly endless edit war that surrounds this article. This is an emotional topic for many people who -- quite understandably -- feel morally obligated to ensure that this article represents the correct view, so as to avoid a situation where Wikipedia becomes a propaganda vehicle for racist ideology. However, I do not believe that is currently the case, and although the article is certainly not perfect, I think the critics have taken the unusual subtext that this is a moral crusade for them and that the opposition are all racist ideologues who must be crushed at any cost. That view is incompatible with harmonious editing on Wikipedia and I intend to leave the article protected and make edits personally based on talk page discussion until people cool their heels.

Remember that at least one editor has been banned by the Arbitration Committee for stubborn and relentless edit warring in this article. Even if you -- or anyone else -- think the article is wrong, objections must go through proper channels. I hope to be able to use my administrator authority to facilitate that to everyone's satisfaction, and I hope you can agree with me on these points.

--Ryan Delaney talk 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You could have, at least, archived the comments. And in your rush to delete my comments on the talk page you also removed a new concern from WD. I have put everything back. When the conversation is over we will archive it. It is directly relevant to the content of the article and the focus is on improving that content, at least from my perspective. We have both rushed to judgement. Let's move forward. futurebird 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it would satisfy you, I will archive the discussion rather than delete it. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's not OK we need reach a consensus first on what to do about the article.futurebird 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing "Remember that at least one editor has been banned by the Arbitration Committee for stubborn and relentless edit warring in this article. Even if you -- or anyone else -- think the article is wrong, objections must go through proper channels. I hope to be able to use my administrator authority to facilitate that to everyone's satisfaction, and I hope you can agree with me on these points."
 * This last paragraph reads a bit like a threat. Was that your intention? I just don't see how the fact that you are an admin is relevant here.futurebird 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the Arbitration case in question is useful because Arbitration Committee rulings tend to be viewed by the community as having a role similar to case law in the American legal system. To extend the analogy here, the fact that the Arbitration Committee has already ruled that edit warring over the neutrality of the Race and intelligence article is impermissible suggests that they would do so again in a similar or identical case, and so it may be unnecessary to bring such a case to the Arbitration Committee a second time. That doesn't mean I think it's necessary to initiate an arbitration case against you, per se, but I do think it means that everyone involved should recognize that there is existing precedent here about what is and isn't acceptable behavior as a Wikipedia editor. As an administrator, I view myself loosely as a "moderator with a stick." --Ryan Delaney talk 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That comment annoyed me becuase I have not made many edits to the page. I go through the talk page first, I try to avoid reverting things without talking first. The only 'edit war' seems to be over having these comments on the talk page. Maybe we need to talk about *that*... This is absurd. I'm sticking to every rule to the best of my ability and I still feel as though I'm being told to shut up and go away becuase my concerns (and they are not my concerns alone) are simply not important. I'm angry right now so I'm going to leave it at that. futurebird 19:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One other thing: Please read the comments before you think about removing them again. futurebird 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to negotiate with you here. Please extend me the same courtesy, or dialogue will not be productive. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Response
I think you may have missed my note to you in the flurry of activity here. I was going to suggest we may wish to set up a subpage for discussion so it doesn't spam up your talk. Seraphimblade 01:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Let me se if I remember how to do that! futurebird 01:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sketch-4race-transparent2.png
I have added my comments on the page as requested. Fosnez 12:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

joke
it was meant as a joke. most of the supporters and detractors will vote, view, and understand information through the lens of personal experience. i don't agree with the article. i think it demoralizes blacks and hispanics in addition to what american society doles out. but i have not made up my mind about the censorship of thought and press. --Hollerbackgril 05:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * your broad assumptions of my ignorance serves no useful purpose--Hollerbackgril 21:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Notsame.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Notsame.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. 10:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)