User talk:JJJamal

Welcome
I saw your comments and I'm glad that you are here don't be afarid to be be bold and make edits to the main pages. Welcome to wikipedia! futurebird 21:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow
I didn't expect you to say so much. But maybe it will help... we'll see. Thanks!! Oh, and, I'm not just being "nice" I'm trying to be fair. I know how you feel about these things but we really need to have both side represented-- FAIRLY-- you know? I'll talk to you later. You should check out my new wiki project WP:AFRO if we can't fix the problems let's at least make these articles clear and strong-- there is so little content and we need a lot of help. I hope you stick around. futurebird 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

response to your questions
You are an admin, right?
 * yes.

Can you explain why pages around here get locked as soon as people try to address POV issues by countering racist arguements?
 * No article should get locked after one edit. However, Wikipedia is collaborative and millions of people make edits all the time.  If two or more people keep making edits that cancel each other out, the article is unstable and of use to no one.  At that point, an admin will protect the page to give editors time on the talk page to sort out their differences and reach a compromise.  if no compromise is reached, it is pointless to un-protect the page.  Since "wiki" means generally anyone can edit anything, un-protecting the page when there is no agreement only means people will keep changing each others edits again.

I've seen this happen to two pages today?
 * I do not know which pages you are talking about so I cannot give you a specific answer in regards to those pages. You are free to ask whomever protected the pages for an explanation (if they did not already give one).
 * If one of the two pages you are referring to is "race and intelligence," you are wrong to suggest that it is protected only yesterday. It was protected more than a week ago, and not by me.  The reason stands, though: people editing could not agree, so the page had become unstable (meaning, if a series of people tried reading it at, say, 15 minute intervals, each time they cwould get a different version - not what we want!) and it was protected to force contributors to work out a consensus on the talk page.  No one is censored - all contributors (including people you do not agree with) are blocked from editing ... until you reach an agreement.  I have made it clear that once agreement is reached on any key point of contention I will make the appropriate (i.e. agreed upon) edit; once all key points of contention have been resolved, we can un-protect the page.  To unprotect it now will just lead to a revert war in which no-one's edits will be preserved, which is no good to anyone. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, How can you mediate this dispute when you seem to have your own POV on it?
 * Who doesn't have a POV concerning race and intelligence? It is hard for me to believe that there is anyone active at Wikipedia who has no views on the matter.  Be that as it may, it is a very very long time since I made any edits to that article and I don't think any of the current text was written by me, so I have no personal investment in the text; also, I was not involved in the dispute largely between RIK, JK, and Ramdrake.  Having a POV is not an issue in mediation - whether or not one was involved in the specific dispute is.  I wasn't. so I am eligible.  Also, JK, Ramdrake, and RIK and also Futurebird have not objected to my mediating.  No one can mediate unless everyone agrees, and if they didn't accept me as mediator 9for any reason), I would be ineligible.  That said, i do not think I have allowed my own POV to show in my comments.  I wonder whether you have been able to figure out my POV!

I'm not trying to insult you here. It just looks unfair from where I'm seeing it
 * No insult taken, do not worry. Now, an aside point, if you are ever confused about edit wars here.  There are three core principles to Wikipedia and you can read all about theme here: WP:NPOV,WP:V,WP:NOR.  Any edit, regardless of what view it espouses or anything, that does not comply with all three of these policies will very soon be reverted or deleted or changed.  And if you make an edit and you feel confident that you are fully complying with all three of these policies and someone reverts you, you should feel confident about arguing your case and asking why you were reverted.  People here hold diametrically opposed views on lots of stuff.  Agreeing on these three principles is the only framework that enables people who are otherwise antagonistic to work together on writing an article.  At least, that is the hope. People react negatively to anything that can undermine any one of these policies, but ought to welcome anyone who is committed to all three.  Good luck! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Feedback
I'd love to have your feedback on these proposed changes:


 * 1) Change Media section- change to match sub-article
 * 2) Change Utility of research- change to match sub-article
 * 3) Possible revision of text about race as a proxy-I've proposed two revisions here, if they don't work... why?
 * 4) New Intro Sentence

futurebird 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

race and intelligence
I have semi-protected the Race and intelligence article so you can now edit it. If you do not mind, I would like to give you some advice that I believe is important if you want your improvements to the article to last, and that will protect you from unfair conflicts. I apologize if any of this sounds patronizing. And if you question my motives all I can say is I really am trying to be practical and strategic. I think if you do not follow this advice no sustainable progress will be made in the article. If you do follow this advice, I think the article really will get better, even if at a slower rate than you'd like. I am sharing this with Futurebird and JK; please share this advice with anyone else you closely collaborate with. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Accept RIK's tremendous, if partial, knowledge. He is almost always rigorously careful about adhering to WP:V.  I ask you to keep in the front of your mind the Wikipedia dictum that we are about "verifiability, not truth."  It does not matter whether whether an edit by RIK is true or not.  What matters is that it be verifiable and in my experience RIK's edits always are.
 * 2) RIK like all editors (including you) must comply with WP:NPOV. ALL "facts," no matter how verifiable, no matter how many sources can be used to support them, reflect some point of view.  The safest way to protect your own additions is to be clear about the POV (from a scholar?  What field?  Natural science?  Social science?  Humanities?  Or a journalist?  What credentials?  Or a politician?  Or a civil-rights leader?  What organization do they represent).  If you ever feel RIK is unclear about the POV of his edits, politely insist that he make the POV explicit.
 * 3) Beyond the above two points, here is my really BIG piece of advice: as long as RIK provides his sources do not delete or even bother to edit what he writes. I do not mean forever.  i just mean for now.  My advice is strategic, i want to suggest to you what would be a more constructive path at least for the time being, which is:
 * 4) my other really BIG piece of advice which is to instead focus on adding what you think the article lacks. Let RIK add his stuff.  Of course it is biased.  All facts are biased.  And his bias will always be a part of the article.  WP:NPOV however demands, that other POVs be included too.  My advice is, for NOW, focus on making sure those other POVs get in.
 * 5) You MUST be rigorous in complying with NPOV (see above)
 * 6) You MUST be rigorous in complying with WP:Verifiability - always provide a credible source. Credible does not mean correct, truthful or articulate or eloquent.  It means someone that even your oponents must accept as an authority on the topic - some part of the topic, and in some way.  A professor of journalism or political science writing in a book published by University of Chicago Press is a good example.  A stanford University psychologist publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is another.
 * 7) I URGE you to restrict the sources you rely on to those that explicitly address the relationship between race and intelligence. I realize you believe you have a reasonable argument for including material from sources specifically on "race" that do not explicitly address race&intelligence, and maybe your case really is reasonable.  But I am trying to be practical.  If you use a source that is not clearly about race and intelligence, some others can accuse you of violating WP:NOR which prohibits us from making our own generalizations or synthetic claims.  So if you use such a source you are inviting a conflict.  No, it does not matter who is at fault or who is right.  What matters is making edits that are unassailable and will not be deleted or, if someone deletes them, you can with confidence revert the deletion.  This will ensure your edits stick.  I am advising that this - making edits that stick - be your priority.
 * 8) My final and really really really important BIG piece of advice: If you add content that is accurate and relevant, from a verifiable source, that in no way comes close to even kinda sorta violating NOR (because you are not making ANY synthetic or general claims, only citing a verifiable source that does and that is directly about race and intelligence), and you are painstakingly careful to comply with NPOV, and if another editor deletes what you added, then make a record of that editor's deletion immediately. Also, document any violation of the three-revert rule (and be sure you never violate it ever ever).  And document any personal attacks.  Just keep the record carefully, and keep it to yourself.
 * 9) If after two weeks you can document a pattern in which your fully NPOV/NOR/V compliant edits are consistently deleted (whereas you have not been deleting that person's stuff), and someone else has violated 3RR (and you have not), and someone else is guilty of personal attacks (and you are not) ... you then would have a very strong case to take to ArbCom. Very strong.  Present ehe record you have been keeping then.

Jamal
You are an asshat, but I love you any way. Fight the power Bro. futurebird 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nisbett in context
http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815746091/html/index.html

I couldn't find a pdf version of the whole book (nisbett just wrote chapter 3), but they let you browse a version online. Thanks for the tip! --JereKrischel 08:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

 * 
 * futurebird 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What I was thinking
Is that the labels on the graph help to add... context, it helps to show the mentality of the type of people who do this work. It should also get the graph moved out such a prominent position rather quickly. It shows how a graph like this one can express a POV. Your reaction to the labels was the same as mine, the first time I saw it. I had to share that outrage with the world, rather than just letting them see this graph as "pure science" lets open it up and get to the heart of what these people are really talking about. futurebird 01:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not funny
You're just going to get banned. futurebird 02:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On policy, urgent
Concerning one of your conflicts with WRN, it is important that you understand the following, taken from our WP:NPOV policy (which is sacrosanct):
 * ==== POV forks ====
 * A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.
 * A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

I urge you to review the NPOV policy, and read the policy on content forking, and take every measure to ensure you comply with these. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC) PS I do not know the answer about images, sorry.

t-h-a-n-k-s
Thank you so much for your help with that IfD, It's nice to see things going the right way... for once. You know, it's string to feel like there is a real community here, and I'm string to think that the wikipedia can be the kind of place that with some work, people will be able to trust for real information... even on controversial topics. So, thank you, Jamal. I'm glad you thought it over and saw the point of those labels. futurebird 20:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about this?


futurebird 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin
I see what you mean! Wow. futurebird 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Hey, you need to watchlist this page. There is no guarantee someone will actuall step up and mediate, so you need to watch that page to see if someone does. For more information, read this. Good luck, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha!
You crack me up with that AAVE. futurebird 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

about to archive
Hey, JJJ, before I archive it, will you make sure there is nothing here or in the following section - chock full of citations - that you want to put in one of the pages you are working on, but have not yet? best, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egyptians
JJJamal, this is a very sensitive subject: Races, Egyptians, Origins. Please, try to contribute!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Race and ancient Egypt
Since you have worked on this article I thought you might have something to say about this RFC. futurebird (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

your "advice"
It might make a difference if you apologized, you seem to be in pretty bad shape due to this RfC on you. If you wrote a really sincere apology it might mean something. Just an idea! I mean, this is a MESS. And I'm not even from India, man. JJJamal (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. If you just decided you wanted to do some random trolling, please find another talkpage to do that. You want to gang up with Wikipedia's resident Hindutva trolls, feel free to do that, it will not reflect well on you. You want to learn about the history of nationalist trolling on Wikipedia, feel free to browse my talk archives. dab (𒁳) 09:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I came across your post to Bachmann's talk page on his talk page -- and his response (also above). At least you tried.  Clearly, he believes he did nothing wrong, that the ends justify the means.  He sees no fault in himself; it's all the "clueless choleric teenage nationalist youth," the "trolls" and "POV pushers" who are the problem, the enemy to be dispensed with by false accusations leading to trumped-up disciplinary procedures/sanctions, by revert-warring, by incivility and intimidation --any means necessary for the good of The Project.  So, ask yourself:  Should he continue to be given a free pass to violate Wiki etiquette and process, to abuse his admin privileges at will?  Should this person remain an admin with his attitude and his record?  I don't think so!  He must be called to account. deeceevoice (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I tried to reason with the guy but he's just so caught up in his sense of being "in charge" and "in power" that he won't listen. I don't think it's a good thing that he's an admin. I think the only reason he's an admin is because he's been here for such a long time and maybe he got in early when the standards were more relaxed (??) I have no idea. JJJamal (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've come to the conclusion that entities like Dbachmann have been given a free pass and possibly their marching orders with the consent of the higher-ups -- and probably even the highest-up, if you get my meaning. deeceevoice (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

caution!
Jamal, Are you aware that the bunch of Indian editors whom you side with against Dbachmann are part of an anti-muslim cabal which successfully got a number of Pakistani editors banned because they are Muslims? You should check the hisotry of those vociferous attackers of dab. You also need to know that Dab has been at the forefront in dealing with Hindu fanaticism for a long time now. That he is against all sorts of fanaticism is his sin. I know that he sometimes gets testy but who do not? Naya savera (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where are you? We should meet and talk about this. futurebird (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

would love your collaboration
http://www.afropedea.com http://www.afropedea.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.48.62 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)