User talk:Muntuwandi/Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:Skhul burial.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Skhul burial.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Skhul burial.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Skhul burial.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC) --Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kamuzu.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Kamuzu.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 uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vinhtantran (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, the image is currently discussed at Non-free content review. Basically, because the image itself is not discussed in most of the articles, they do not meet WP:NFCC. Please feel free to discuss and raise any concerns. Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
As I keep learning, I take your suggestions very seriously. --Panehesy (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked
Per you're unblocked. This is conditional on WP:1RR and no use of socks, as per prior agreement. Happy editing William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million. I will abide. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I reckon it will be important for you to remember that some of the edits you have fought for in the past really were controversial, for example concerning the way you wanted to re-balance haplogroup M and haplogroup DE. You will have to accept that you'll never get those through based on just insisting over and over as you tried in the past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to give M and DE a fair assessment. Considering both the Asian origin and African origin, from both the DNA perspective and the archeological perspective. I think what I have suggested is the most accurate representation of most recent studies, and the articles in their current form are not doing that. I am getting concerned because other wiki projects in other languages are copying from the english version, and what they are copying is incorrect. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not only them that are copying things. This is indeed a widely used resource.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your remarks on Sub-Saharan DNA
With all due respect I suggest you remove this edit. I think it is counter productive because you are now addressing a person, not an argument. Leave that to him. Surely you've learnt by now that this just gives people an excuse to escalate any unpleasantness. It is simply not practical, and you should consider what aims you have and how you think you'll achieve them. You say that "it is still a good idea to get some of these matters resolved regardless of the outcome of the AFD". Please define (at least to yourself) "these matters", and what kind of resolution you think is possible. I think these matters probably include a long cycle of what you consider to be strongly POV editing, deleting and reverting, affecting the quality of the article? OK, so, how do you resolve these matters if you a suggesting ignoring the people who claim to have justifying arguments for those edits? This is Wikipedia remember? Like it or loath it, but don't complain about it not being under some single person's control, given that this is essential to what Wikipedia is. It is easy to go out and get yourself some webspace for a blog.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is wikipedia's policy to start out Assuming good faith, and I think I have assumed good faith with Small Victory and the others. Yet he has referred to some of my suggestions as "idiotic", calling me an Afrocentrist and Causteau has openly questioned my mental health. Having provided so much scientific evidence in which they have all chosen to ignore, I think it is only fair that I begin to question whether they are acting in good faith. In fact I have clear evidence of Small Victory misrepresenting sources in ways which could be interpreted as lying. It is all in the sources and any independent person can verify that Small Victory is deliberately misrepresenting information. So their is legitimate evidence to question whether the editors are in fact acting in good faith. I stand by the fact that you are trying to be "nice" with some of these editors at the expense of the articles. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't looking good William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my comments are related to a specific editor. I am carefully watching over my comments, but at the same time, if some editors are not acting in the best interests of an article, I feel I should be able to point this out. Not to worry, I won't escalate things to unacceptable levels. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem agreeing that Small Victory's behavior is not acceptable sometimes, and I have mentioned it on his talkpage. But leave it to him to act this way! Your interventions in the past made it very difficult for others to calm down discussions and get to the beef, as I think you realize yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I still suggest you remove that posting. It is a distraction to discussion about specific matters in the article in question, and that is not going to encourage any progress.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you acknowledge that Small Victory's behavior is sometimes not acceptable, I will remove the posting. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That should not be the reason.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt
Muntuwandi, there is something I do not understand. People brought the issue of socks in the article AERC. But if remember well, you stopped editing for months now that article under the name Muntuwandi. Am I wrong? I would understand the whole issue if you were using both manes in the same article. But as far as I know that was not the case. Is this issue of socks just a construction in order to ban people who share more or less your views about ancient Egypt?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I was last seriously involved in the article two years ago. That was before Urthogie and Taharqa were edit warring, I thought things were getting too heated. I think Vassyana has offered to be an informal mediator. If he agrees to be neutral, I think it might be a good idea if everyone accepts his offer. That may help in resolving the dispute. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note
This is a courtesy note to inform you that the set of five recent Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic bans by has been raised at arbitration enforcement for review: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I am informing you because you are an involved party or commented at the arbitration clarification request. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to leave me a talk page message. --Vassyana (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons
Hello,

I have responded on my talkpage on Commons.

Best regards,

Abigor (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unbanned
Thanks. However, no sign of any apology or show of remorse - typical of that species. On top of which, on my first day back, I already have Zara the Veto Queen asserting her right to decide what the scope of the article should be from now on - like I don't have enough reason already to be sick of this article. BTW - what name are you officially using now, so that we can be consistent and avoid accusations of socking again in the future? Wdford (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom bans
Hey Wapondaponda. Ice Cold Beer has responded to the Arbcom case for some of our bannings. I received support from Sandstein to have my ban lifted. Who makes the final decision on whether or not to lift the ban? How can I contact them? AncientObserver (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Irbisgreif (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick editing makes messy sentences
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_E_%28Y-DNA%29&diff=prev&oldid=307524293 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, I don't have as much time to edit as I used to. So my edits have become a bit sloppy. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll fix them when you notice them though. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Posts in WQA
I was forced to remove the Quotation tags in WQA from the original poster, as they did not do as I had asked. Can I ask you to format yours without those tags as well please - I hate having to do it myself. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can remove the tags, though they add extra formating, I do think they help in decluttering the text. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Genetics section in Afroasiatic Urheimat article
Two things: 1. I am worried that saying M1 and U6a are thought to have an East African origin is not neutral enough. The comment implies academic consensus or at least no debatability? 2. I am thinking that it might be worthwhile continuing the sentence about the Y haplogroups in Chadic by saying that this situation has been compared favourably to, or described as consistent with, Roger Blench's "inter Saharan hypothesis" concerning Chadic origins, but this requires citing myself. So I wonder what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will add the reference from Gonzalez et al 2007, which states


 * It is not the parent clades, but rather the subclades M1a and U6a1. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And is this non controversial?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that nobody has yet to challenge that certain subclades of M1 and U6 dispersed from East Africa, though their parent clades may have originated elsewhere. It is also not controversial that M1 and U6 are frequent in Afroasiatic speakers, but are rare in the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa. We can include information on the inter-saharan hypothesis, but I am trying to see the connection between westward moving cushitic pastoralists and the dearth of M35 lineages in Chadic speakers.Wapondaponda (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See my article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The conclusions of that published review are as follows...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Our review of the E-M35 evidence gives many insights useful for multidisciplinary consideration in both linguistics and archaeology:
 * The evidence strongly suggests that the male lineage most strongly associated with Afroasiatic, E-M35, clearly has an origin far from the Levant, in Africa
 * In Africa, the Levant, and the Arabian Peninsula, E-M35 is strongly associated with Afroasiatic languages, with the strongest links being in a great curve from the Maghreb to the Horn of Africa. In Anatolia and Europe this association is not apparent.
 * Northern and Eastern Iberia appear to show signs of immigration which combined Middle Eastern and North African roots, and was possibly associated with the Neolithic Cardial culture.
 * More generally, pockets of ancient Middle Eastern derived diversity seem to be scattered around the Mediterranean coasts and islands, possibly also due to the Cardial culture, and related Neolithic cultures.
 * Berber populations, while overwhelmingly dominated by specific E-M35 male lineages, are not in the same sub-clades as found along the Nile and into the Horn of Africa.
 * At least when looking to E-M35 and Y DNA, we can see that Chadic speakers are not only geographically isolated from other Afroasiatic speakers, but also to some extent, genetically isolated from them. This conclusion appears to support the “inter-Saharan hypothesis” of Blench (1999c) as an explanation concerning the origins of Chadic.
 * That Cushitic languages came from the North closer to Egypt, is a possibility strongly favoured by the E-M35 evidence.
 * Populations speaking Omotic languages, like those languages themselves, are more closely related to other Ethiopians than to nearby Nilo-Saharan speaking populations.
 * We can include this information. However, I am still unclear about the inter-saharan hypothesis. If Chadic speakers are descended from Cushitic pastoralists, then why are they said to be genetically isolated from them. Is it due to admixture with Nilo-Saharans, or is it that Nilo-Saharans adopted an Afro-Asiatic language. Then there is R-M173 in Chadic speakers, it is not directly connected to Afro-Asiatic languages. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is the odd pocket of R1b and the LACK of E-M81 which matches Blench's theory, and the lack of other E1b1b types is consistent with Blench because indeed he sees mixing and overlaying of Nilo-Saharans in the area in between. Also, Ehret's theory being that Chadic is related to Berber does NOT fit the genetic evidence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the detection of E1b1b1b in Sudan by Semino et al, the probable origin of Chadic. Keita seems to think it as relevant. I am also unclear about Cushitic origins coming from the North. Most of the studies cited see the initial split in Afroasiatic as occuring between Cushitic and Omotic. Where is this split supposed to have taken place, since Omotic are found in Southern Ethiopia. Doesn't Blench even see Cushitic speakers have a distribution that extends south beyond Tanzania. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your points, and they don't seem based on what I was writing. If you look within Sudan, as per the Hassan et al paper, you can see that Chadic speakers have less E1b1b than their neighbours. However, as you would expect from the Blench theory, there is a GEOGRAPHICAL trail of E1b1b which goes through Darfur, but does not respect language groups. This is the trail Blench thinks was followed. I do not think there is any consensus at all that the first split is between Cushitic and Omotic, but rather between all the others and Omotic. Every linguist has a different way of sub grouping, but I do not see that as very relevant. I don't think it is controversial to say that Cushitic extends to Tanzania, but I do not see how that is relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't do a good job of connecting the information. Yes Chadic speakers do not have E1b1b1b which would make a relationship with Berber unclear based on the genetic data. However, if ancestral E-M81 is detected near the Horn, say in Sudan per Semino 2004, then it may be possible to resurrect Ehret's scenario. I was reading your publication and trying to reconcile the connection between the southward movement of Cushitic and the Urheimat of Afroasiatic. If the Urheimat is in Ethiopia, did proto-Afro-Asiatics move north and cushitic branched off returning south again. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think E-M81 is common in Sudan. The Semino data is from Underhill 2000 and equates to 2 out of 40 people, so the Hassan study is far more important. Concerning the Afroasiatic Urheimat it is obviously not clear where it was, but both Blench and Ehret would have later proto Cushitic near the Red Sea, where the Beja live today. What Blench is arguing is that Chadic represented a branch to the inland of this, which then moved on to the west perhaps with the first pastoralism, to be followed by Nilo-Saharans from the north. Ehret BTW thinks early Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan speakers were neighbours into pastoralist times and that branches of both moved south as far as Tanzania, with Cushitic first. So another branch moving in another direction would make sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Auton et al.gif)
 Thanks for uploading File:Auton et al.gif. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. FileBot (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Victorius III
Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Victorius III. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
NW ( Talk ) 14:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Haplogroup M1 tree.gif)
 Thanks for uploading File:Haplogroup M1 tree.gif. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. FileBot (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Laziness is not a good excuse for an edit
This is not the right way to work: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&diff=prev&oldid=309832516. I note your explanation for this revert upon multiple edits is very silly. I have been trying to shorten the Y DNA section which is something I think definitely needs to be done. You've erased several boring looking but difficult edits. If you don't have the energy to edit properly and give proper explanations then please put it off for another day?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

More. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&diff=309835478&oldid=309834754 This puts back in sub-human English. Get a higher standard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree about silliness. I think it is better to deal with problematic edits first before adding new content. Not doing so gives a tacit approval to problematic edits. An editor who has been pushing a multiregional POV on several articles, sprinkled his POV all over the article. We shouldn't have any tolerance for this editor's POV because he has tried this before. It is quite a chore to look through each an every edit that this POV pusher and potential sockpuppet has done. It is easier to revert to a stable version that is devoid of POV and re-add the non-controversial material. If others have done so instead of simply standing by, and leaving an editor to his pov pushing, then I wouldn't have to revert. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You have been too quick to pass judgement, I haven't even finished going through the edits to add some of the material back. You have assumed that I wouldn't add any of the material back. In fact I was even considering doing a much deeper revert, because this user has a habit of ruining articles with incoherent language, but I didn't want to cut out new edits either, so I settled on a version from just yesterday which is fairly recent, not much critical has happened. No need to overreact, eventually whatever edits you wanted to make will be incorporated. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is simply no reason to do block reverts in cases like this. Don't do them. Other people are also working.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, you have to get yourself out of this editwarrior mentality. Someone has to start trying to fix that page.PB666 yap 20:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Arredi
Hi, concerning this it had not struck me as really needing much "criticism" because I do not think Arredi were doing any more than just covering all options. OTOH I think it is not uncontroversial to say that the Near East is an outside call, despite recent comments on Mathilda blog, but it would be more elegant to cite a genetics paper if possible. In case personal POVs sometimes help explain positions I'll say it is my opinion that it is most likely that E-M78, E-M123 and E-M81 all originated in the area of Egypt, although with E-M123 the chances of a trans-Sinai origin are a bit higher than for the other two.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What concerned me was that some users have started quoting Arredi's suggestion of Near Eastern origin of proto-Afroasiatic. As you mentioned, this runs contrary to what the majority of studies suggest. I think it was a little bit lax on the part of Arredi to include such a statement without a comprehensive analysis. He should have been aware that there is already a vigorous debate concerning the origins of proto-Afroasiatic. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point to some extent, but I am wondering if we could source this more elegantly. I don't think Arredi et al meant this suggestion as anything more than a listing of all possibilities?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking for a better source, but it seems that M81 has not been investigated as much as M78. Since E3b has at least 7 subclades, it is possible that some of these subclades are monophyletic. It seems unlikely that the same E3b* would have given rise to m81, m78, m123, 281, v6, p72 and M93. The branching order problem with haplogroup DE and CF may also apply here. This could help to resolve the origins of M81, though its distribution still suggests an origin near Egypt. On M78, as mentioned previously, Cruciani et al 2007 didn't include any data from Sudan in their analysis on the origins of M78. Hassan et al found 2 individuals with M78*, one Nuba and one Masalit, whose locations are further south from Egypt. The Masalit near Chad, and the Nuba, closer to Ethiopia and Kenya. V12*, which is close to the root of M78, is also common in Sudan. It seems the Sudan region is almost able to rival Egypt in terms of diversity of M78 lineages, most importantly the presence of M78*. We'll have to wait for a comprehensive study that includes more Sudanese data. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would think that Sudan would have been included in Cruciani et al.'s northeastern Africa if they had data.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, El-Sibai make a similar remark implying that E-M35 had a back migration to Africa from the Levant. I also mentioned this possibility in my review article. I am not sure what your point is about such remarks as you clearly think E-M35 was in the Levant before the Neolithic, in the time of the Natufian, and so a back migration has to be at least a possibility?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible, but no phylogenetic evidence yet. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I still do not get your point. E-M35* was presumably also in both the Maghreb, and the Levant, and Egypt, as well as further south. We are talking about a long time ago. E-M81 is apparently a direct line from E-M35* which has very few siblings for millenia and then goes through a sudden exposure in NW Africa, so it could have come from pretty much anywhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible, but we don't see the diversity of M35 lineages in the levant that we see in Africa, that fact that m78* is found in Africa and v13 is derived from m78* still points to migrations out of africa, rather than into it. It is still possible to have a levantine dispersal of m35 lineages back into Africa, but the principle of least-moves argues against such a migration. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
You're on WP:1RR parole. You appear to be interpreting that as an entitlement to 1R a day. It isn't; just as 3RR isn't an entitlement to 3R a day. Please stop edit warring on Genetic history of Europe or you'll be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will stop, but it does take two to edit war. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, it is rather more than two. Please be honest William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather, I meant to say it takes at least two. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

African History Wikiproject
Hello Wapondaponda. Knowing of your deep interest in African history and determination to adhere to the highest standards of references and citation, I'd like to invite you to join the African History Wikiproject. Our function is to assess African history articles for inclusion in the category African History; assess for and quality; and suggest or implement improvements. Many African history articles, though well researched, lack citations etc. The project is a collaborative effort that will grade articles and guide editors. Project membership and contribution is voluntary. You can sign up here... WikiProject Council/Proposals/African history. Ackees (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of African admixture in Europe
A tag has been placed on African admixture in Europe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of African admixture in Europe
I have nominated African admixture in Europe, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/African admixture in Europe&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different
I would love to see you work on something with nothing to do with Africa and there is an article which beckons: R1a. This article's two opposed POV factions are Eastern Europeans and South Asians. But this is an important haplogroup! Currently I think I am making progress through the dirty compromise of allowing an over-sized data table (but there are some who want to push this even further, inserting every "key" tribe and percentage into the summary box, and into related articles), but it is hard to concentrate enough to make sure the main text "flows". Each section has its own POV debate history. Can you have a look at it for me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to wean myself off "Africa" articles, but there is a lot of work to be done there too. I will try to have a look. R1a seems like a magnet for problems since SOPHIAN was involved with his map. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for dragging you back in, but I think your experience and skills are a great boon to African history-related articles. That is why we have invited you to join the African History WikiProject group. Sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/African history. Ackees (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups
I guess it reflects something, but it could in any case certainly be improved. Large parts of the world and several of the major haplogroups are not even covered. In my opinion this article and R1a article show us a problem that needs to be considered more: much of what we have concerning haplogroups is simply primary data. Many of the edit wars and style problems in these articles stem from the fact that this is all we have to work with. In the R1a article I am currently working on fixing the table there, and I find that even though it is enormous, it is cherry picked. However, it is the least controversial part of the article to the regular editors, whose biggest concern is that someone will underplay some piece of data. I don't see any neat solution, so I think more data tables are coming, maybe they need to be split off on some occasions to become whole articles. Just the R1a table on its own would be a decent size. As you probably realize, I've made tables for some other haplogroups over on the E-M35 project wiki. For some haplogroups like E-M123 that few authors have made any common on, raw data IS the story. Should we move our conversation WP:HGH talk?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A weight on your shoulders :)
See and. It will be interesting to see what you can make with a window of opportunity! If you can show a neutral approach maybe we can calm down some of the stuff that happens on these articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is a still some work left including the information that was previously in the "North African admixture" section of GHOE. The recent study by Moorjani et al, when released may provide some additional information that may help structure the article. However, now that there is an article, there is no rush to implement significant changes. The article and associated articles have attracted too much attention in the last couple of months, but I believe it was necessary. Now that the articles have the attention of the wider community, we can rest a bit. I don't know what will happen with SV, but if he is not editing, then there will be an opportunity to make progress. I welcome criticism or disagreement from SV or others as long as it is civil and in good faith. But unfortunately up until now this has not been the case. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The main thing is to try to make sure the article is of sufficient neutrality, and also that it has some coherence overall.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments about Small Victory's block
Hi. I noticed your comments. Please note that it Takes two to tango. There are a number of admins who are quite aware of Small Victory's history, and we will be watching him closely when his editing privileges are restored at the end of his block. I strongly suggest that you take advantage of the time to improve the articles you have been working on, and try to avoid any further controversy with Small Victory on his talk page. It can't do any good. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would strongly concur on both counts. Focus your energies on some well-sourced, neutral editing on the articles in question, proving your critics wrong, rather than leaving cans of worms for them to open.--Slp1 (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will take your advice, maybe it wasn't the best judgment on my part to comment on SV because I am an involved party. I will desist from commenting because I may be an unnecessary distraction. Since a number of admins are aware of the situation, I can step aside. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Anatomically Modern Humans
This edit was another example of a revert which no doubt has reasonable intentions, but which I think is poor practice. You not only reversed edits by the editor you mention in your summary, but also attempts by others including me. Of course your own work is not tidy, which also give others more work. Please spend a bit more time on such things?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand, the problem Andrew is that Xook1kai is a known disruptive editor. You tried to clean up some of his edits, but by doing so you are tacitly giving legitimacy to his edits. Until Xook1kai starts articulating his arguments and starts collaborating, we should not tolerate his disruption. This is not just my opinion, but it is the opinion of numerous other independent editors as per this ANI thread. I have often complained that you are sometimes too tolerant of some of these "problem editors" .Unfortunately, what is likely to happen to Xook1kai is a formality waiting to happen. We shouldn't try to make him look good because it will result in an unnecessarily long process. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See the article talk page for an example which makes a nonsense of this vague excuse. You removed a whole section I re-wrote that had nothing to do with his work. You might have other problems with what I had proposed, but then please explain them and don't pass it off as something else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In your latest posting on this, if you "agree that the debate right now is between mostly out of Africa and strictly out of Africa. Multiregionalism has undergone its own evolution." then why on earth did you argue for (and revert for) wording which definitely states otherwise and makes multiregionalism a straw man? If the case for OOA is strong, which I agree it is, then it does not need help from filtering and twisting the facts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This made me laugh
Are you are a Mossad agent too? Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, at least he has taken a break from editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Kebaran and Mushabian
Regarding this edit you are choosing to ONLY cite a 1987 article, which not everyone agrees to be proven I think. You might want to throw in some "probably"s and the like.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes there are one or two publications that seem unhappy with an African origin of the Mushabian, but at the same time, I haven't yet seen any study that confidently states in detail otherwise. It seems that most studies have avoided the issue. However, as you point out Ehret 2002 and Keita and Boyce 2005 still support this hypothesis, though the hypothesis was first proposed in 1977 and restated in 1980 and 1987 by Bar-Yosef. As with most archeological studies, I definitely agree that there is still some uncertainty regarding the origins of the Natufians and Mushabians. I can refer to it as a "hypothesis" since more information is still required.Wapondaponda (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems prudent. In recent publications Bar-Ofer himself is careful about his wording, although he still tends to think it is correct. In terms of more recent evidence than 1987 consider figs and fruit bats.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

R/I protection
I see that you requested edit protection on the page. Do you want to discuss why? Aprock (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have noticed an escalation in the revision history and a couple of reverts, which are indications of trouble. Hopefully protection for a few hours will calm things down. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Race and genetics
I would like to let you know that I consider it a personal attack for you to be quoting things I’ve written at websites outside of Wikipedia in your comments on this article’s talk page, and using your inferences about my opinions from what I’ve written elsewhere as a way to attack my motives for editing this article. I recommend that you read No Personal Attacks, because it’s fairly clear there that the behavior you’re engaging in is disallowed by this policy.

I’m aware that in summer of 2008, you were banned for disruptive behavior similar to this (along with your numerous sockpuppets), and that you were allowed back three months ago under the condition that you would no longer engage in this kind of behavior. I recommend that you not continue this, since if you do I intend to bring it up with the administrator who unblocked you, who may decide that you’re violating the terms of your probation. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You made the comments yourself, and you posted a link to those comments on your wikipedia talk page . I learned of your blog post from your talk page. If you don't want wikipedians to see your blog postings, then don't bring them to Wikipedia. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don’t have a problem with people at Wikipedia seeing what I wrote at other websites. What I have a problem with is people using my writings elsewhere as a way to attack my perceived motives for editing an article, rather than trying to explain what’s wrong with the edits themselves, because attacking another editor's motives in this manner violates  No Personal Attacks.  This shouldn’t be so difficult to understand. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Race and genetics, again
You really ought to let this issue drop. With your continued personal attacks, as well as your recent violation of 1RR on this article (one of the conditions under which you were unbanned), I suspect that at this point you've done enough to justify your ban being reinstated. I intend to bring this up at AN/I if you continue. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally we can agree on something as I was thinking of taking this to a noticeboard as well. I was however hoping that the issues would be resolved on the various talk pages, but if it is going to drag on then maybe some external input will be great. As for your accusation of personal attacks, the appropriate noticeboard is WP:WQA. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It’s going to drag on for exactly as long as you drag it on. Every time you try and fail to get this image removed based on a particular policy, nobody can stop you from immediately starting a new attempt to remove it based on an entirely separate policy.  Including your most recent attempt, you’ve tried this six separate times over the past two weeks.  Assuming your sixth attempt goes the same way as your previous five, what sort of resolution are you hoping for here?  Are you thinking of giving up on this eventually, or will the resolution be when you run out of possible Wikipedia or Wikimedia policies to claim that this image is violating? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: WP:AN/I
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

0RR restriction for both of you on Race and Genetics

 * Let's make this easy for you...
 * You're both edit warring over the image. I don't care to delve into correctness of the content issue.
 * Rather than pick one of you as "at fault" here I am simply imposing the following - you are both on 0RR (may not revert, in any way) on the article Race and Genetics, for the next month (as you've been doing this for at least that long so far). You both should have known better than to do this, and could have handled it in another nonconfrontational manner.  Both of you are playing the abusive edits game - and you're both on time out.
 * If you can edit the article without reverting anyone over the next month, feel free. I don't see any sign you're being disruptive other than with the edit warring.  But revert and be blocked.
 * Cc'ed at ANI, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:Muntuwandi Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Marimba Ani
Muntuwandi, I hope you heard about Dr Marimba Ani, an African American Anthropologist, well known for her contributions in the Afrocentric School. I have created an article on her, but in less than twelve hours, somebody came to delete it. I need your help to resume this article which was just in creation. Actually it is really astonishing that there isn't an article on such an important figure in Wikipedia. In left also the same message in Deeceevoice's talk page. If you have time, please listen to Dr Marimba Ani Marimba Ani - European Quest for World Dominance--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Wet pahses of the Sahara Sahel region and human migration
 * Thanks, it is an interesting study. Unfortunately they haven't done a thorough job integrating their information with the palaeoanthropological record, but it is understandable since they are climatologists. It would appear that the MIS 5 which occurred 110-130 kya corresponds with the Jebel Qafzeh remains and Skhul remains from Israel. The study also might provide fuel for the debate over the Northern route versus horn of Africa route out of Africa. Since the Sahara went through a wet phase 50-45 kya, humans could have used the Northern route out of Africa. Alternatively, they could have left via the horn much earlier, and returned to Africa 40kya via the Levant during the wet phase, bringing haplogroups M1, U6 R-M173* and X. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Farming Berbers
Hello Muntuwandi, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Farming Berbers - a page you tagged - because: I don't see any evidence of a ban. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Jake   Wartenberg  06:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jake, isn't a ban a social construct. Indefinite blocks and bans are sometimes used interchangeably. I have never quite figured out the distinction. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Farming Berbers, SOPHIAN, etc.
Hello Muntuwandi. I was going through CAT:CSD when I saw your tagging of. I see that is indefinitely blocked, but I was unable to confirm that he/she is actually banned. Do you have a link that can confirm that SOPHIAN is banned?

The problem is, from a policy perspective, that if SOPHIAN is not banned but only indefinitely blocked and editing in evasion of the block than the banning policy states the page should go to AfD. If SOPHIAN is blocked but not banned, I would suggest that you send the article to AfD as it looks like any deletion rationale would require expertise that I do not have.

Thanks for your help.

CIreland (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Postscript: I see that just declined the speedy. CIreland (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Notice
This is a notice to inform all parties in the MedCabal case involving the article Race and Intelligence, that the deadline for any final comments in this introductory stage of mediation is due within the next 24 hours. At the end of this timeframe, the Mediators will seek page protection for 48 hours to review the entire case and prepare a schedule of issues to discuss to proceed forward. Thank You for your cooperation and acting in good faith to pursue a conclusion to this dispute. Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Paragroup
Hey, I just want you to know the reason I rejected Paragroup is that it neither had a Wiktionary page, if you can provide a definition for Paragroup in the Wiktionary and a reference for its correct use I will reconsider this position.PB666 yap 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a normal approach to such a question?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that Wikipedia articles are preferred over Wiktionary articles when it comes to wikilinking. According to its history, Pdeitiker created the wiktionary entry for paraclade. Though insisting on correct referencing, none was provided for the wiktionary article. There are plenty of references that specifically define what a paragroup is.
 * [Unsigned posting by Wapondaponda/Muntuwandi. PLEASE sign postings on talkpages?]. That's also what I thought. I have no problem with using wiktionary for links when there is no wikipedia article of course. But the other thing which seems totally out of line is "if you can ... in the Wiktionary ... I will reconsider this position". I can imagine someone saying that you should give a source for a definition, but Wikipedia does not say the only source for word meanings is Wiktionary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

R&IQ
please weigh in here:! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Natufian-pc-analysis.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Natufian-pc-analysis.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 "file" 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 "File" 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.  Ja Ga  talk 15:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cavalli-sforza dendogram.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cavalli-sforza dendogram.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HLA-DRB1.png
 Thanks for uploading File:HLA-DRB1.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Muntuwandi! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Michael Loren Mauldin -

R1a
Could I ask you to look at this and comment? I am also asking other editors active on the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Afro-Abkhazians
Please see Talk:Afro-Abkhazians. - Jmabel | Talk 07:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Do not remove large amounts of sourced material, as you did at Demographics, without discussion. Unit Anode  20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am now reverting these massive deletions as simple vandalism. Unit  Anode  20:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What happened to WP:AGF. I can see that Template:Globalize tags have been in the article for more than 3 months, so it is pretty clear that there is some consensus that the article is too USA-centric. I have just been WP:BOLD and done what needs to be done. Wikipedia has a general audience that extends far beyond the USA. So the articles we have should reflect a worldwide view not a US-centric view. There is an article entitled demographics of the United States that is more appropriate for such material. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

image deletions
Hi Stifle, You recently deleted this image File:Albino_baby_malawi.jpg as it was available on commons. However this image was initially on wikipedia before it was "moved" to commons. The uploader on commons did not mention the original uploader, so when the wiki article was deleted, the original information was lost. The image is from flickr, ordinarily this wouldn't be a big deal. However the image was previously "all rights reserved". I requested permission from the copyright holder to add a creative commons license so that it could be uploaded to wikipedia. When he did so, I uploaded it to wikipedia, this was before the big push to move images to commons, otherwise I would have uploaded it to commons. This has happened to a few images already. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make? The license has been verified against flickr now. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard to licensing, it doesn't make a huge difference. But it does make a difference with regard to the history of the image. When moving images from wikipedia to commons, it is recommended to use the commons helper, because this preserves all the original information, including the original uploader and any other information. Moving images to the Commons states,
 * If the image has a revision history, make sure to upload the old revisions first. Of course, you might choose to ignore some revisions as irrelevant (for example, vandalism). You should always upload the original version the recent version is based on.
 * While licensing issues are not a problem, it is not best practice to see an image on wikipedia, and then upload it independently on to commons, without acknowledging the original wikipedia file in some way. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add whatever attribution you feel is appropriate to the Commons page. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

mainstream POV or POV pushing?
Would you mind responding to this: ? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

CDA section
You started a new section on the CDA page - did you intend for your comments to be in the main "support" section, or are you looking to start a new discussion? If the latter it should probably be on the talk page, but I think you probably just typed in the wrong place and should move it so your views are properly counted. Happy editing!--~TPW stands for (trade passing words?) or Transparent Proof of Words 13:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the comments should be in the main section. Unfortunately I only have access to a really slow connection, and I have difficulties making edits to sections with a lot of text. Its easier to create new sections. The section has been moved now, and I am content with that. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tamil man.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Tamil man.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Teleological development of religion


The article Teleological development of religion has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * unreferenced essay, orphaned OR

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

to read when you have time
You almost got the mediation group canceled by wikipedia. It still might happen. Techno Faye Kane 14:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Before I read, is there any mean stuff. I am a bit squeamish Wapondaponda (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI? come on...
M - I expect this kind of stuff from Mathsci, but I thought you had more common sense than this. This is not an ANI issue. I'm more than willing to step off as mediator if that's the consensus, but please take it up in the correct forum and don't get sucked into Mathsci's taste for wiki-drama. -- Ludwigs 2 19:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you being the mediator and may not agree with all of Mathsci's observations, but I do agree with some of them. At present the mediation seems to have been hijacked by a few WP:SPA types, so we do have a potential problem that concerns the legitimacy of the mediation. It is quite possible that some editors in the future could argue that because of all the crazy stuff that was being allowed in the mediation page, the mediation shouldn't be taken seriously. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * who are you thinking of as the hijackers, here? I'm still sticking by the core of most-active-posters who've been there since I started on the page, and people like Brian Pesta and the couple of recently-joined participants don't carry as much weight with me (though I don't mind them participating).


 * as far as the ANI goes - Mathsci and Beyond My Ken seem intent on stirring up whatever trouble they can for me - they have thoroughly hijacked the thread about Faye to play wiki-lawyer games. I suppose there's nothing to do at this point except leave them to their silliness.  MedCab is a volunteer thing, and I took over the mediation with full approval from the active participants; worst that's going to happen is that they'll spew a lot of smoke at ANI, and whenever they are done I'll turn around and ask you guys what you want me to do.  I'm happy to step down or stay as the consensus dictates.


 * I do need your input, though: I'm going to go over to the article now and push through an outline for the page so we can make some active progress, plus I've started a list of consensus agreements near the top of the page, that Occam and VA have been adding to. because you seem to be one of the stronger voices, and seem to be on in opposition to VA and Occam on a lot of issues, it would be helpful if you gave some constructive feedback on both.  The outline I'm going to use will probably be based on VA's version, though I'm going to try to integrate portions of yours (and some of your objections in text) into that.  at any rate, what I'm aiming for is something that most everyone on the page can stomach (not necessarily something everyone will like), so any thoughts you have on that would be helpful.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunda shelf.jpg
Can you please expand description of this file, namely: whether it was created by you, or there is a different copyright holder), otherwise it is impossible to upload it to WikiCommons. Regards, --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

R & I mediation
I left a question for you in mediation [here]. I want to make sure that you're satisfied. -- Ludwigs 2 15:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nisbett
Anything to contribute to this discussion? I think who is considered a significant view is critical to this mediation. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

twin studies
Hey, I am hoping you can help me with a possible problem in the current R&I draft. It currently gives great weight to the adoption study by Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman. A colleague told me that the study is not only flawed in numerous ways, but that this is acknowledged by the authors of the study. If this is so I think it is important that we ensure that the article describe explicitly what those flaws are, at least (or especially) those acknowledged by the authors. But I don't have the study at hand, and am not as familiar as you are with the possible problems. I am asking if you can look at the article, see if you agree that the authors acknowledge serious flaws, and then either propose the appropriate edit to David Kane, or just make the appropriate edit after he has finished the next revisions.

Weinberg, R. A., Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). "The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence." Intelligence, 16, 117-135. (note 46 in the current draft; the section on child-rearing)

Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I, I see that this article is still given prominenc in the current revision. Have you had (or will you have) a chance to look at the article and see if it is as problematic as someone told me?  I'd really welcome your input here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been tied up with RL over the last couple of days so I've not been able to look into many of the problems. I'll give it a shot today. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thnks - I just think it is one specific and major weakness with the article and addressing it will make a diference. I appreciate your help, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

On Tuesday
could you see if this argument could benefit from your views? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your views are really needed ...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#New_version_of_assumptions_and_methodology_section:_Comments_welcome.21 ... here (Race & IQ)] Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

quality of data
I'd really appreciate your input here, especially regarding proposals by DJ and Captain Occam. Thanks. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that in the place linked and many other times in the discussion (e.g. where you pointed out diferent numbers of standard deviations in data for blacks and for whites) you have pointed out major problems with the data. The problem is, these all seem to be your own criticisms.  And even if you were right and if the criticisms are relevant and important ... we cannot put them in, it would violate NOR.  Can't you find published sources that make these3 criticisms, that can be put in? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

would welcome comments from you ...
here Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ps: it concernt this edit diff:

Creation myths
Hi, there. Oddly enough, we seem never to have collaborated on any article before. Yet, your comment at Talk:Evolutionary origin of religions got me to look a few things up:


 * "Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion." E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe", Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia (1974) p1007.

I've been trying to bring in some prominent published views about origins that run counter to the editorial trend at Wikipedia. Some call this "editing against consensus" and want to discourage it. Others argue that it is wrong to delete well-referenced information merely because it "advances a POV".

I just think our readers might be interested to know about theories other than those informed by methodological naturalism. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are several alternate theories, but if they are not scientific, or methodological, then they are unlikely to achieve mainstream status in academia. For wikipedia purposes this means placing them in the proper context. I would like to know which specific theories you would like to include. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case
I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes
I don't object to you reverting Occam's big addition to R&I. Prior to Arb Com, that is reasonable on your part. But you also reverted a bunch of small changes that he made to recent additions to the article, additions that were not really discussed. Would you object to me reverting those? Mostly this just makes the article look like it did two weeks ago. David.Kane (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I don't have a problem with uncontroversial edits, but which ones are you referring to. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, I don't suppose you'd be willing to adjust your evidence so that it comes in under the 1000 word limit? Even with your responses, you're significantly over.  I appreciate that you may have a lot to say, but as you can see there is already quite a lot of stuff there for the arbs to read through, and it will help enormously if it's as clear, concise, and to-the-point as possible.  On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Generally speaking, yes, responses do count. But even without the responses, you're still well over the 1000 word limit.  Keep in mind that the Evidence page is not for discussion of the topic or to debate with other editors, it's simply to make it as easy as possible for the arbs to get a feel for the situation.  A lot of your responses are of the type where you appear to just be arguing against Captain Occam rather than presenting evidence for the ArbCom.


 * My usual suggestion in this case is that you should decide which parts of your post are core to your argument, keep them on the page, and perhaps post the rest on the evidence talkpage, with a link from the main page to the relevant talkpage section. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Understood, I do acknowledge that my evidence is heavy on Captain Occam, as I do view him as the major problem. I will try to adjust it to make it seem less personal. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Genetic ancestry in Rio Grande do Sul
Hello, Muntuwandi.

Maybe you will be interested in this issue. In Brazilians of Spanish descent, this paper, by Brazilian geneticist Andrea Rita Marrero, is used as a source for the information that "Gaúchos [...] are mostly descended from Spanish ancestors, and less from Portuguese". As this runs contrary to mainstream knowledge about the region, it would be interesting to understand what exactly are the bases for the paper's conclusions. Another paper by the same scientist (in collaboration with others) gives more details about the subject. Could you please help us with this subject?

Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your hello
Hello, yep had a letter published. It is fairly simple and straightforward and the authors also responded in a positive way. Concerning what affect the correspondence has on the "state of the art" the Cruciani et al article will probably eventually be cited by proponents of Militarev style theories of Afroasiatic being Eurasian. Personally I would find that unjustified because we are only talking about a very specific branch. But for now anyway this has not happened, and the Cruciani et al authors only see it as supporting the theory than Chadic comes from the north (long after Afroasiatic was already quite dispersed) and this appears a more reasonable conclusion given their interpretation of the data. They seem open to the possibility that Chadic may still have come from the East.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. Funnily enough though I do not have online access to that, but of course I received a copy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Your name came up in a sockpuppet investigation
Here is the link. Wish we could have been informed.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like some paranoia. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Question at Mitochondrial Eve
Biophys has a question about an edit you made to Mitochondrial Eve a while back. I figured that you'd be the best person to ask. --Danger (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I also responded here. Biophys (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:


 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
 * The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
 * Mathsci (by consent)
 * David.Kane
 * Captain Occam
 * Mikemikev
 * Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW ( Talk ) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

... and related
We're not going to make much progress unless we all agree to put the arbitration to bed, yes? I only came in at the tail end and quickly had more than enough of my fill (!). I suspect the same can be said for all. It will be difficult enough as it is to build back an atmosphere of good faith—not sure that ever really existed, but hope springs eternal. Best, P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 19:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the arbitration was put to bed until Captain Occam reappeared as Ferahgo. There is nothing I would like more than to put the whole fiasco behind me. I just thought that the community should be aware that an editor has gamed his topic ban. I will leave the issue to the community to decide and will not take it any further. Looking at Talk:Race and intelligence feels like Déjà vu, so I will probably take a break from the subject for a while. As for the atmosphere of good faith, as long as editors come to the subject with strong emotional views that originated outside of wikipedia, rather than a simple sense of curiosity, I doubt that there can be a peaceful editing environment. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Time will tell. Ferahgo's gotten advice on how not to be Occam. Hopefully semi-protection will cut the rest of the crap out for a while. Of course, as with many topics, "opinionated" is sometimes the product of being well informed, sometimes it's, well, just being opinionated. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 00:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * People tend to seek out information that affirms their prejudices and predispositions. Someone who believes in alien abductions is likely to be well informed on matters involving alien abductions. I think everyone involved in the dispute is well informed on the subject but we all have very different opinions on how Wikipedia should represent the controversy. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case one has to read all applicable sources, not just the ones which reinforce their opinion—and not just pick out spot quotes from online book and journal searches without reading the whole source and understanding what they are quoting in context. Some subjects, unfortunately, are more open to interpretation and abuse by personal "small 'r'" religion. There is too much arguing over exclusion instead of dialog over inclusion and positioning of genuine reputable scholarly viewpoints along some representative spectrum. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Typical of personal religion is the vociferous deriding of a source, followed by, "No, I haven't read it, and I don't need to." P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

would love your collaboration
www.afropedea.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.48.62 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My race in biomedicine draft
Muntuwandi, I spent literally an entire day researching for this and subsequently writing it. I put a lot of effort into making it as neutral and balanced as possible, and was proud of what I came up with. Maunus specifically asked me to try rewriting this. If you want to point out specific POV issues or suggest additional sources, feel free.

But if the only way you're able to interact with me outside of the amendment thread is to follow me to various articles - articles you're not even contributing to otherwise - and make these distracting and downright insulting claims when I'm contributing productively, then I'm going to start an RFC/U about you. Your behavior is bordering on harassment again, and is actively impeding the overall quality of the encyclopedia with these tireless off-topic accusations that obstruct genuine content discussions. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed this comment[Talk:Race (classification of humans)] you made to the talk page as it is not constructive or conducive to a good editing environment. If you have a problem with the proposed version please adress how it could be improved instead of commenting on other editors. The issue with Ferahgo is being taken care of by arbcom untill such a time as arbcom should decide to impose restrictions she is as free as anyone else to work towards an improved article.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * if the only way you're able to interact with me outside of the amendment thread is to follow me to various articles - articles you're not even contributing to otherwise. This is not accurate, I uploaded this image File:Sickle cell distribution.jpg, which is in the very section, Race_(classification_of_humans) that concerns your specific draft, and have contributed to the very section in the past. From my experience interacting with Captain Occam, I believe it is within reason to be concerned if he or his associates choose to make any major changes to race related articles. In this case FTA or CO has whitewashed much of the criticism of using racial labels in biomedicine, which isn't a surprise to me. Wapondaponda (talk)
 * It is never reasonable to object to a draft proposal only based on who wrote it. Based on a discussion between several editors Ferahgo was invited to propose a draft of the biomedicine section. What you think about her motives or associations is irrelevant.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read the draft and made my comments based on what I read, it wouldn't be fair to describe anything as "POV pushing" without giving it a fair shake. I stand by my claim, you are entitled to disagree and we can leave it at that. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)