User talk:Ramdrake/Archive 3

Soulscanner... again
I find Soulscanner has gone way over board, especially his most irrational (cynical even) behavior at National Patriotes Day which is nothing short of vandalism from where I stand. What should we do about it? Should we start by filling a solid WP:WQA on his behaviour? Or should we ignore it and just initiate the long dispute resolution process right away, patiently walking our way up the ladder until the naming conflict over Quebec's National Holiday is truly over? I am confident I can remain WP:COOL & WP:CALM, however it would really really help to have the guidance and assistance of a Experienced & Established Editor, whether you or anyone you recommend.

There is a limit to the abuse of the consensus policy: a single user cannot fight common sense, verifiable facts, reliable sources, and generally more knowledgeable users (on a given subject at least) anyway he pleases, don't you think? This is very tiring for all of us, and not to the advantage of Wikipedia and its goal which is the diffusion of knowledge.

Also, on a related "case", I personally feel we (common sense people who know at least some about Quebec) have failed to support the actions of User:Joeldl over the Quebecois page problem this past March, especially his patient work on demonstrating "the fundamentally territorial nature of Québécois (in French). In June, I found excellent sources by accident which I pointed out to him on his talk page. Unfortunately, he has been away from Wikipedia for a while and I do not know when he will come back. (His last edit is dated May 27, 2008.) C'est à suivre... :-)

-- Mathieugp (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi, Ramdrake I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments in RfC/Elonka
I think diffs would be helpful. I can't find this type of involvement by Elonka in the article you mention. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed you made a suggestion about how to handle problematic editors (the sort that try to push junk into articles) and while I'm not sure that the Wikipedia community is ready to approve something like Subject Matter Experts, I think I may be getting a better idea of what you're concerned with. If I'm understanding correctly, its about the difference between "no edit warring" and "no reverts" - while keeping people from edit warring is more about keeping the editing environment sane, saying "no reverts" may put a barrier in the way of keeping the content sane.  I think part of the problem may be that for administrator's trying to help resolve some of these long standing disputes, its hard to tell who the good guys are sometimes - with everyone reverting, claiming that their pov is the right one and being a bit snippy with each other, you'd need to have a good knowledge of the subject to sort it all out.  Like you said, the problem is most of the editors and administrators trying to help out aren't going to be experts and I'm not sure there's an easy way to fix that.   Shell    babelfish 10:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, and that was the entire problem with the whole Jagz affair. Alun (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, Shell, that's exactly my concern. It's a matter of trying not to throw the baby out with the bath water. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been wandering around looking at some of the disputes that keep cropping up, particularly in the medical science areas and I came up with some more questions. In my past experience with disputes where editors kept trying to give undue weight to material, it seems like other editors were able to discuss things and come up with a general consensus of how much space the material should get and which sources were appropriate. Sometimes this took getting other outside editors through an RfC or a post on RS/N, but in the end a majority of editors agreed how to handle it and the editor(s) trying to insert more material were politely told that consensus was against them.  There were a few cases where those editors continued to edit against the consensus and ended up blocked or under sanctions.  Do you think that's an approach that would work for the types of disputes you're experiencing?  Or is it difficult even getting a consensus on these issues at all?  Because honestly, if you have editors who're continuing to fight a clear consensus, I'd consider that to be disruptive and think they should be put under some kind of restrictions.  Shell    babelfish 09:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In my experience (editing the Race & Intelligence article and others related to it), I've encountered a few POV-pushers, but most lately and prominently people like Jagz, who wouldn't even be satisfied with an RfC on the question, and kept putting the same question to FTN and NPOVN (about the fringe status of the hereditarian hypothesis, which he categorically couldn't accept). Now, this POV-pusher also happened to be very civil in his ways and demeanor, which confused more than one admin (until some admins decided to follow the talk page over weeks and months and sorted things out). Even when Jagz was finally indef-blocked, he still was so polite that Elonka fell for it and argued against a strong consensus to have him unblocked. However, he managed to get himself reblocked in a matter of a couple of weeks. A second issue was with an article merge and the user Zero g, who had been pushing a POV that the theory of dysgenics (as advanced by Richard Lynn) was a notable one. The theory was already discussed in part in the article about Lynn, but an article was created regarding a book he had published in 1996 on the subject, which had been the subject of a half-dozen reviews, and then litterally fell into oblivion. A proposal was done to merge the book article's contents into Lynn's article, and was endorsed by 5 editors, with only one dissenting voice, Zero g's. Several days after the merge was done, Zero g started to single-handedly revert the book article to its pre-merge state. This again ended up at ANI, where Elonka insisted that an RfA be held on the subject (claiming some improprieties in the merge process). The RfA's result was that the merge was endorsed by many more editors, with again Zero g being the lone dissenting voice.
 * That's why to me, an admin injecting themselves in such a contrversy without trying to understand the content part of the dispute (or even at least the history of the dispute) can lead to erratic results. In both of the cases I witnessed, there was considerable wiki-drama generated, and considerable energies and time went to waste to get exactly to the same point. While I have no doubt that Elonka had the best interests of everyone at heart, it seems clear to me that she argued without a full proper appreciation of the situation. However, I'm sure that other admins in the same situation might have done the same thing.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, just a point of clarification about why I got involved with the Jagz situation at all. It wasn't that he was polite (it was clear that he was being repeatedly uncivil), it was that he was blocked, indefinitely, without warning, and blocked as though he was a common troll and vandal. But he was a longterm editor with an FA to his name. Even if he really was pushing a POV, we still do not issue indefinite blocks on longterm editors in that kind of manner. Heck, even with anon vandals, we tend to at least give them a warning before blocking. If MastCell would have placed a few warnings on Jagz's talkpage and made it clear that a block was in Jagz's future if he didn't straighten out, I probably would not have spoken up. But think about it, how would you feel if you got into a dispute somewhere, a few editors started calling you a troll, and then suddenly an administrator blocked you indefinitely, without a single warning to your talkpage? You might have been a bit testy too. --Elonka 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, if you take a look at Jagz' history and that of his talk page, you will see that he was incessantly revert-warring and was indeed warned several times for it. I am unsure as to why he didn't get more blocks for his revert-warring, but that's how it happened. If you look at his contributions, even though calling them "trolling" might be disputable, I believe that many of them (especially on the R&I talk page) would definitely qualify as "baiting", however. So, he was warned several times for his behavior, although he didn't receive increasing blocks for it. He kept removing warnings from his talk page regularly, so that kept the history less apparent. But please review Jagz' talk page history and you will find multiple warnings there. It may have been your perception that Jagz was blocked pretty much out of the blue, but a closer look at his history will reveal multiple warnings.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did look at his talkpage history, quite closely. And yes, I looked for deleted messages.  But the history of the block was this:
 * On June 3, MastCell posted to Jagz's talkpage, announcing the 6-month topic ban and related ANI thread. MastCell also said, ""You've done good work elsewhere on Wikipedia, and hopefully that will resume."
 * There was some other (non-admin) chatter around them, including a barnstar awarded to Jagz from Plusdown
 * On June 6, I posted to Jagz's page about communication, and how I urged him to wipe the slate clean and move forward, but let me know if he had any concerns and I'd take a look.
 * On June 13, 03:35, Jehochman posted a question about whether Jagz was really retired or not, and gave him a caution about his message to Cailil's talkpage, saying basically to save comments for the RfA
 * Five hours later, 08:28, MastCell blocked Jagz indefinitely, accusing him of trolling, vandalism, and longterm tendentious editing.


 * In other words, there was no other warning of, "Stop this or you're going to be blocked." Instead, MastCell jumped from a topic ban and "You've done good work" to "I am blocking you indefinitely for trolling and vandalism."


 * It was a bad block, and that was why I complained. What MastCell should have done, was to post to Jagz's page with a message such as, "Jagz, I am concerned about your recent edits, I'm not seeing you move on from the dispute.  Please, I encourage you to get involved in other constructive pursuits on Wikipedia, otherwise it might be necessary to block your account access."  Then, if Jagz didn't heed that warning, a short-term block might have been in order, or a "this is your last warning" message, and then escalate from there to an indefinite if necessary.  But just jumping straight to an indefinite block without warning, was not appropriate.  I would have spoken up about that kind of situation for any editor, not just Jagz. --Elonka 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for the heads up on the vandalism notice. The IP editor that I reverted is the same one as 67.150.254.160 which had made several inappropriate edits a few hours ago, so that's why I automatically called it vandalism. Kman543210 (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: citequote reverted
I have reverted your removal of the citequote tag on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Please see the talk page. Epistaxis (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and POV pushing by tag teams
Regarding this, I wasn't talking about preponderance. I was talking about the suppression of a minority viewpoint on false grounds.

Although less than 200 people alive today believe in a flat earth, our article on the topic must be fair and describe the reasons that flat earthers have given to support their minority viewpoint. We cannot simply suppress their arguments. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:tag team. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that your edits are not always appreciated. An edit such as I made to the beheading article is perfectly acceptable, considering that the info is obvious to the millions upon millions of people who have seen the beheading videos. I never once said that it is the common practice of Muslims to cut peoples' heads off. I was merely stating facts regarding the method, and reason why these Islamic insurgents do this. If you are a Muslim, that's your problem. If you don't believe in a flat earth, that's cool, but some people do. And they have every right to do so. Don't delete things just because you don't believe in them. That's called vandalism, and will not be tolerated. If you disagree with any edits that other people make, then use the talk page for that article to discuss it with everyone.

Shawn Crapo (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, I didn't notice. Alun (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Meat & Socks
Those articles are much more interesting than the ones you linked to :D Verbal   chat  16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing my links at the deletion of Tag Teams, much appreciated.-- Crohnie Gal Talk  21:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GNXP
Hi, it's a really offensive site. I have come across it several times before in google searches and did not know what to make of it, these people like to behave as if they know what they are they are talking about and at first I was just confused. A couple of months ago I came across Robert Lindsay's blog about gene expression and it confirmed my suspicions about this site. It's a bunch of racists trying to convince the world that science supports their beliefs. Then I forgot about it, it was only when I actually looked at the PDF version of Malloy's Medical Hypotheses comment piece that I noticed that it stated that this article had originally been published on Gene Expression and my suspicions were aroused. I then spent some time trying to find Robert Lindsey's blog about the website. The NY Times article came as a shock, this Malloy bloke seems to be getting a lot of attention for talking a lot of hot air on the internet about a subject he knows nothing about. I don't understand why the NY Times saw fit to interview him. At least they didn't pretend he was an expert though. Still he's not the first artist to write racist nonsense and get a lot of attention for it, and we all know where that led. Alun (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, it's funny how they always manage to "discover" that "white" people are really the clever "race". One might almost conclude that they are biased in some way!!! Alun (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert
Ramdrake, please do not revert good faith edits. You are welcome to change things, but just doing wholescale reverts is uncivil. --Elonka 23:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The best way to proceed here, is to ensure that the essay reflects consensus. This doesn't mean "Okay, we have a consensus, and now anyone else who wants to change the essay needs to get permission first."  Instead, it means trying to edit the essay so that everyone's view is presented.  If you disagree with something that I've added, then add more information yourself! The strongest essay will be one that reflects both our points of view, not just one or the other. --Elonka 03:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny - that sounds a bit like an accusation of tag teaming. WP:BRD would suggest that you are wring in calling this uncivil, and recently you have been bandying about accusations. Also, tag teaming isn't on your 0RR - so I see no problem with Ramdrake's action. Making changes as smaller edits would have been much more helpful, especially when moving sections as that really messes up the diffs. Verbal   chat  06:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, this edit, though not labeled as a revert, obviously was. You're simply removing information that I'm adding, and you're using a false edit summary. At Tag team, you seem to be violating WP:OWN, where you're trying to force through your own changes, and reverting other people and insisting that their edits are not allowed unless they get permission first. You seem to be very confused on the concept of how consensus is defined. Please read Consensus. I am happy to work with you to create an essay that incorporates everyone's point of view. That's what consensus is, not some kind of majority rules atmosphere. So please, stop with the reverts. --Elonka 18:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not using a false edit summary. I did, however, remove bits that I felt were non sequiturs, as the edit summary said.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion page at the IQ article - re your revisions
The claim in the section that the rise in IQ is "worldwide" -


 * And it is, indeed occuring in most parts of the world.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Avoid neologisms
Please stop violating the WP:Avoid neologisms rule on the article African minority in Poland. Thanks.
 * The fact that this search engine only gave 127 results (many of which are blogs) further supports that this term is a neologism.


 * Many words that are considered neologisms may have a very small number of search results on the web. If the word was actually a word, it would have been in dictionaries; encyclopedias; scholarly works; and it would have had at least 1,000 results on a web search engine. In addition, the "Afro-Polish" article on the Polish Wikipedia was deleted because they agreed it is not a valid term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeHarper (talk • contribs) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

White people
Can you please explain why you reverted my edits on the article White people? I see no reason why examples cannot be given in relevent places in the article and no consensus has been gained against these additions as only one editor reverted them and no one other than me has used the talk page. Usergreatpower (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

White people
That has been my standing there has been a consensus for inclusion of the gallery the consensus would have to be for removal not inclusion but i get harrassed for doing the right thing(see my talk page) like im a bad faith editor in this article and to top it off im down on previous record as being in favor of removal of the gallery and having no images but we have one editor who is into art and wants to replace one demon(phtoto gallery) with another a cartoon/art gallery(which would lead to sterotype)--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ramdrake, I'm not going to bother templating you, but I would point out that it appears you're now at 4 reverts in a 24-hour period at the White people article. Please stop.  --Elonka 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment at Talk:Chiropractic
Thanks for the input, I've added a summary of the warnings recently given to this editor, could you comment on the talkpage on if you think these were unclear or not strongly-worded enough? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard Lynn
The original research needs to come out. I will revert back one time, but I will not edit war over this. In the two paragraphs I deleted there was nothing worth saving.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Request
Ramdrake, if I ask really really nicely, would you be willing to remove Jagz's talkpage from your watchlist? Or at least, refrain from posting there for awhile? You do have a point about what Jagz was doing, but it's probably best if administrators handle things for now. Lots of admins are watching his page now, so action from you is probably not required. And if you do see something that we miss, you are welcome to bring it to an admin's talkpage (such as myself or MastCell) so that we can address it. Would that work for you? --Elonka 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
... for bringing the discussion to a close on Elonka's page. I have to admit that I did not seriously entertain the possibility that any other administrator would have been willing to act as Jagz's mentor. Perhaps Elonka will think twice next time before writing n'importe quoi. A bientot, Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

nor
I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC
Thanks, that was odd. I think I fixed it, can you double-check? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed
I so disappointed with the direction the page has taken, it's like some Charest radicals have taken it over, and are attempting to rewrite history, any talk of nationalism has been relegated to a mere footnote. SADNESS. I have no time to jump back into the debate, unfortunately, or fortunately, the endless useless attempts at compromise only served to create non-truths, sigh...--4.234.159.119 (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Québécois
Please comment at Talk:Québécois. Joeldl (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence of Québécois
I don't think specifically is exclusionary so long as "or" is included. Are you sure you object to "specifically" in the form "or specifically"? Joeldl (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, take your time. Joeldl (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Census section
Hi Ramdrake, thanks for taking the time to clean up the census section. I'm not going to have time to work on it immediately, but I will in the coming days. I think with both of us paying attention we should be able to make it less ridiculously biased.

Here are some sources: a report , the original questionnaire:.

Here is what I remember from the last time I looked at things in detail:


 * The whole section conflates the results for "ethnic origin" and "ethnic and cultural identity". The questions asked are different. In particular, the "ethnic and cultural identity" question goes to great lengths to emphasize that the identity can be different from that of one's ancestors. Including the original questions would be useful here.


 * The section goes into detail, on rather flimsy grounds, about how Canadien is an ethnic term in a way "Canadian" isn't, when really he was basing things on a footnote somewhere saying that the author would aggregate the response Canadien in French as a group she called "French New World" ancestry. Naturally, this depended entirely on the language of the interview, and was just a device to handle the fact that "Canadian" is meaningless, and you have to make sense of the data somehow. Soulscanner read into this that she was saying Canadien was an ethnic term in French but not in English. Elsewhere on the internet it's probably possible to find sources correlating a response of "Canadian" ethnic origin with both British and French ancestry.


 * The report I've linked to above studies "Canadian", "Québécois", "Acadian" and "Newfoundlander" ethnic/cultural identities together, calling them regionally-based. I think any argument made by Soulscanner that somehow Québécois is an ethnic term on the basis of this survey looks ridiculous when the data for "Canadian" are presented alongside. He will oppose this as an irrelevant comparison, but the fact that they are covered together by the survey report is justification that the comparison is not original research.


 * The census itself includes a question about ethnic origin, with only 150,000 or so responses of "Québécois."

The bigger picture in all this, though, is that Soulscanner is attempting an impermissible synthesis of facts to argue that "Québécois" is an ethnic term. His overall argument cannot be attributed to any source. Joeldl (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

European ethnic groups
Re, this is getting surreal. We generally have "history" sections in articles on any topic whatsoever, discussing the historical development of the topic. Of course, if we had an article European ethnology separate from European ethnic groups, "History of European ethnography" would be a section at European ethnology. As far as I can see, it is completely undisputed that European ethnology should be a redirect to European ethnic groups (and the term has appeared in boldface in the lead for a long time, so it isn't the case that this is just an "unnoted redirect"), and hence it is completely unclear why you should claim that the history of ethnography of Europe should be off topic. This wouldn't be a big deal normally, but in the context of the severe and completely unmotivated attempts at sabotaging this article, I can only assume for political reasons beyond my horizon, I strongly urge you to remove your warning template in the interest of further unproductive escalation of this non-dispute (I would like to call it a dispute, but the article's "detractors" have so far failed to build any sort of verifiable case. Just as your placing an "off topic" template without any explanation why the section should be off topic isn't particularly helpful). --dab (𒁳) 18:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fancruft
Thanks for the offer. If those articles are an area of interest for you - feel free, but as I reviewed the previous seasons it does appear that the articles tend to shape up into decent articles over time. I just may have begun too aggressive attempt to clean up too soon to actually accomplish anything. However, if the IP's start to attempt to use the talk page to pretend some type of consensus exists for fancruft, I will let you know! -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The definition of fancruft is loose and can't be applied here, as both "trivia" facts are closely related to the article. Similar happenings at the beginning and the end of the episode is an indication of writing style - notice that I'm not committing WP:SYNTH here in any way, but "let [ting] the reader draw their own conclusions" by putting the two facts together. As for Butters being referred to as gay - it's part of what this episode contributes as far as continuity goes. Please don't mutilate articles just for the sake of following rules - eventually, WP is there for the reader and not for the editor. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to scrub the articles of OR, speculation, trivia too, all help is welcome! Alastairward (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're (deliberately?) ignoring my points again, which only proves me right on these particular issues. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar happenings at the beginning and the end of the episode is an indication of writing style. Please supply a third-party reference that says this in relation to South Park episodes. Until you do, according to ur policies, this is OR. If the only thing the episode contributes to the continuity of the story is the factoid that Buttters gets called "gay", then we're in sorry shape. Why doesn't this contribute anything in any other way? About there being Goth students in the school? About the lack of proper teaching abilities of their professor? The fact that Butters gets called "gay" for the nth time is in fact trivia.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the justification behind me adding this to the article - nowhere within the article text have I suggested the "sin of synth" by expressing this opinion. There's nothing wrong in putting these two together and letting the reader do their own "2+2" as far as the meaning of this goes. It's a valid point, why are you being stubborn for nothing? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But you've got to realize that not every single detail has some kind of hidden meaning? What is, for example, the difference between the children playing Call of Duty: World at War (say, Endwar) versus any other type of violent military computer-based game? What is the difference between Butters being called "gay" versus any other kind of insult the other kids throw at him? If he'd been called "fat", would you be counting the number of episodes he's been called that? No, because it's trivial. Spelling out all those details overdetails the synopsis, and the average reader, who may well read the article without being a Sout Park fan, gets losgt in all the detail. The level of detail you want to bring may be appropriate for a fan site, but it's just way too much detail for an ecnyclopaedia, which is there to give just an overview of a subject.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The mention of Twilight in the episode is not a sufficiently reliable source? I don't see how this can be the case.  I also don't see how "Clammato" isn't obviously a parody of "Clamato".71.192.116.155 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to point out Ramdrake, if something is trivial then it is trivia by definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.228.127 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

National Order of Quebec
National Order of Quebec was moved to Order of Quebec on January 18, 2009. There is currently a discussion going on in the article's talk page. The user who made the move is now considering moving it back. We just need a few others to support this revert. Feel free to drop by and visit. ;-)

Bonne année 2009 en passant! -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you Ramdrake, for defending my talkpage, from Mr IP. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this inapropriate?
Why is this inapropriate? Where do I bring it up? Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

hey
Hey Ramdrake, good to see you back. Please see my talk page for a response to your post. Alun (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
As a courtesy, I need to let you know that I've brought your name up at AN/I as a possible sock puppeteer. arimareiji (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAr
I think you posted your suggestion under the wrong case --NE2 23:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

help
I would like to ask a favor of you. it is a big favor but it means a lot to me. i have been avoiding edit wars and cranks by rewriting the formerly attrocious article on "Culture." I have just written the section on physical anthropology and the evolution of culture. It is hard for me to keep things focused on "culture" rather than talking about "anthropology," especially while there are serious debates among anthropologists. Also, I have just had my head in journal articles and what I have produced is not well-written. Long quotes that should be paraphrased, areas that need more expanation, the organization sucks. I am too close to this and need a break but it still needs a lot of work. I am not asking you to do any research (and if i wrote anything that doesn't make sense to you ask me and i will try to clarify). But i am asking you to go over it and edit it - revise for clarity, reorganize, whatever. I am asking you to do this over the next week or two. You could spend a whole weekend working on it. My hope is that if you just spend a little time on this every day or every few days until you feel good about it, you can spread the work over a couple of weeks and it will not be too difficult. here is the link: It is part of a much larger article but i am asking you to look only at this section (I feel better about the others, this is the one that need help!!) I hope you don't mind my asking, I really appreciate the help. Ask me if you are unsure of the research but otherwise i trust your judgement especially here, a topic bridging the life sciences and the human sciences, and the challenge of writing about technical research for a general audience. Best, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 03:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Egyptian "race" controversy
Heya, Ramdrake. :) Happy New Year!  I hope 2009 is going along swimmingly for you so far -- and, if so, that the trend continues.

Listen, some of us have come up with suggested language to replace the existing lead paragraph at the "controversy" article that we feel presents the issue more honestly/accurately and opens up the article for development in a new, more informative and comprehensive direction. If you have a moment, please drop by here and let us know your questions, comments/critique, and vote. Thanks much. deeceevoice (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

race
KC passed this on to me: "have you seen this? Its a blog entry, but links to a reviewed paper." The blog is indeed interesting and the article looks valuable. Perhaps it can be insered into the article on race or racism. I have to focus on my own rwork right now and pass this on to you for your consideration. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Race" as a "Social Construct"
There may be growing pc consensus, but a quick check of biology shows that it's simply spin.

Ryoung 122 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Citing Sources
Ramdrake, may I request that when asked for sources that you may or may not have readily available, but that you have quoted ~ you reveal straight away whether you have it or need help finding it. We are all in this together. Let's not waste each other's time, yeah? Thanks for working with me. Sarah Katherine (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we need to be able to cite sources. If the article I found had said "... a small number of chefs feel this way ~ as opposed to ...", that would be at least a little better.  I would be delighted to see an article that said something a bit more expanded.  I don't blame you for believing firmly based on what you have read in the past what you do.  However, it needs to have hard evidence for our purposes.  Your beliefs and your way of seeing the article stating "a small number" don't really matter to the public coming to these pages for information.  Let's keep looking so that we can create an informational page.  I'm sure you know what you know, but it doesn't have bearing on our search for encyclopedic verification.Sarah Katherine (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dysgenics
You removed the section with no consensus nor close to it. In the talk page, there are as many people who want such a section as against it. The section will be added due to lack of any semblance of an agreement. Verwoerd (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Franco Crackpotto
Thanks - the whole thing is bizarre. 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
You need not credit me. :) Nearly everything on my page I stole from someplace else. Remember, this is wikipedia, which is dripping with free content. Plagiarism R Us! And now you've got me humming that Tom Lehrer song about Lobachevsky... Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At one time I was thinking of displaying a washing machine which wouldn't run its final cycle, hence "entering the no-spin-dry zone", but I thought to be at once too complicated and too obscure. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Genetically modified food
Thanks so much for your input on this article! It still needs lots of work, and attention from someone more expert than myself, so if you end up with any free time and have a masochistic side, feel free to contribute further. When I put a note on Guesttarda's page asking for advice I knew other editors would see it; you're one of the people I was hoping might drop in : )  Doc   Tropics  14:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IP editor 68.33.205.149
Hi. The IP editor has a long history of POV edits that seem to be pushing a racist agenda. The editor's latest project is adding Racism and Black supremacy categories to BLPs because of rap lyrics. I don't know what the right forum is, but I agree that we should bring the IP editor to the attention of more editors. — Malik Shabazz 02:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PETA - treatment of animals in some rural shelters
Hey, Ramdrake - No problem with changes. I didn't check the source, only that there was no edit summary to indicate why the change had been made. I think those methods may have been more common a few years ago, but the reversion is fine. Bob98133 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

White people
Hello! You might be inrerested in tha fact that some users are trying to re-add pictures to White people. Thsnks! The Ogre (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Glad you are alive, hope you are well. Let's catch up soon. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Afro Europeans
Hi. You recently moved Africans in Europe to Afro Eureopeans. While I agree that the previous editor shouldn't have moved the page without discussion, you appear to have spelled the new article name incorrectly. Also, you might like to contribute to the discussion on the article name on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Will do.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PETA - percentage euthanasia
Hi - I don't doubt that your percentages are correct, but I wonder if listing them is OR since the source doesn't list them? I think those numbers used to be there, so no big deal, just wondering? Bob98133 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not OR as per this. It's just a routine calculation.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Makes sense. You sure know those rules (and how to find them)! Bob98133 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned in the result of a 3RR case
Hello Ramdrake. I saw your comment here in the 3RR case. Please note that a warning to you is included in the result of WP:AN3. Per WP:REVERT, a revert is "any action which reverses the actions of other editors". It does not have to take the article back to a previous version. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Update on Worldwide tag at Race and intelligence
Can you provide an update for this discussion? Thanks David.Kane (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked through my refs (a list I compiled quite a while ago, and it turns out most of them have been incorporated in the article since. However, a friend of mine also came up with this short list, which would support the point quite well:















Sorry for the delay: I'm at the hospital most days of every week lately (ESRD and associated issues - not pleasant), so I have rather little time to myself and can't answer as swiftly as I'd like.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Snyderman and Rothman (study)
I brought this up on the talkpage, Ramdrake. Since you're feeling revert happy, perhaps you'd care to explain why WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issues cannot be addressed immediately. Thanks, -- Aryaman (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on Race
Well there's these:


 * National Human Genome Center observations about "race" and genetics Template:Race and Genetics NHGC.
 * American Association of Physical Anthropologists statement on the "Biological Aspects of Race"
 * American Anthropological Association "Statement on "Race"
 * "Because humans have high within-group genetic variation, genes are unlikely to explain average differences in IQ test scores of different racial groups. We do not know the extent to which genes underlie a person’s ability to perform complex mental tasks, but there is no reason to think that people whose relatively recent ancestors all came from one continent would have different variants of any relevant genes than do people whose ancestors came from another continent. If potential “cognition genes” are similar to other genes, then most variants will be found within all groups of people at similar frequencies."
 * "It is statistically implausible that variants of numerous genes relating to intelligence would be distributed among racial groups in a manner that systematically conferred cognitive advantage on one group or disadvantage on another. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the claim that current racial differences in mean IQ scores are caused by racially distinctive patterns of genetic variation. There is evidence that IQ scores are influenced by environmental factors that are pervasively and systematically patterned along racial lines in the U.S. Nonetheless, mean IQ differences among racial groups have been decreasing over the past few decades, perhaps in response to improved educational opportunities for some minority individuals. Taken together, the evidence suggests that differences in IQ scores are the result of social inequality rather than its cause."
 * "Many claims of contemporary hereditarians have been critiqued and debunked in books such as Measured Lies, 48 Inequality by Design, 41 Whitewashing Race, 49 and Intelligence and How to Get It. 50 These books describe mistakes of fact, method and logic made by the hereditarians."
 * "Hereditarian claims are based on the alleged heritability of IQ. Heritability assess the way a trait varies in a population, and purports to measure how much of that variation is explained by genetic differences within the population. The remaining variation is attributed to all other factors (the environment and non-genetic aspects of biology). If children in a classroom score between 90 and 130 on an IQ test, a hereditarian might claim that 65 percent of the 40 point difference in IQ is due to genetic differences between the students, and 35 percent is due to other factors. Strong proponents of hereditarian theories tend to believe that genetic differences explain as much as 85 percent of the variation in adult IQ in a population, but other scholars believe that genes explain much less than 50 percent of the variation in IQ."
 * RACE, GENES AND INTELLIGENCE


 * "Today, scientists are faced with this situation in genomics, where existing biological models or paradigms of 'racial' and 'ethnic' categorizations cannot accommodate the uniqueness of the individual and universality of humankind that is evident in new knowledge emerging from human genome sequence variation research and molecular anthropological research. The paradigms of human identity based on 'races' as biological constructs are being questioned in light of the preponderance of data on human genome sequence variation10, 11, 12, 13 and reflect the need for a new explanatory framework and vision of humankind with different fundamental assumptions about biological groups that can accommodate new knowledge from a new generation of research." Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation

You might like to try
 * Council for Responsible Genetics
 * Genetics for the human race
 * Is race "real"?

The thing is Ramdrake that the rewards don't justify the effort. I made a huge effort to change a single sentence. That sentence was badly written, confusing and didn't come close to saying the same thing as the sources. I'd have thought it was in everyone's interests to change it to something more accurate and precise. But the arguments I got were generally irrelevant. At least two editors claimed that heritability was a measure of genetic contribution to intelligence (Occam and Arya), whereas no one has ever disputed that heritability is a measure of variation. Then Occam went into a long irrelevant discussion about regression towards the mean, while Arya went on about comparison's of within to between group variation. None of these expansive discussions were at all relevant to whether the sentence was accurate or precise. My complaint about the sentence is still relevant and still outstanding, but what's the point when substantive issues become bogged down with irrelevant issues regarding the beliefs of editors. I am wholly uninterested in what Arya and Occam believe, but was bombarded with their beliefs about regression towards the mean and within to between group differences. They seemed to be incapable of sticking to the subject at hand, which was whether the sources actually say that within "race" heritability is "substantial", and whether most of the measurements have been done with homogeneous populations. Indeed Arya didn't even accept that environmental influences can affect heritability estimates, which displays a deep and fundamental lack on understanding of what heritability actually estimates. When observations about substantive problems with a very tiny part of the article can be derailed like this, then there is a fundamental problem here. I would have thought that it was in everyone's interests, whatever one's point of view, that the sentence in question was clearly written, accurate and precise. But instead of accepting the challenge and cooperating with me on trying to re-write it, all I got was a barrage of irrelevant posts that added nothing to the discussion. Indeed my salient points were never addressed during these posts. I don't know if this response was supposed to be some sort of filibuster, or really was borne of ignorance, but either way it hardly seems worth my while to contribute. There's no real support for editors who want to improve articles like this, and people like Occam and Arya seem to split the world into false dichotomies, as in "you're either with us or against us", and simply refuse to even acknowledge that the people they see as their "ideological enemies" can ever have anything worthwhile to contribute. And so they just became refusenicks towards my proposed minor change (I wasn't even trying to change the meaning, only make it more accurate) simply because it was me who had made the suggestion, I don't think they even bothered to respond to the actual substance of my problem. Coming back here has only served to reinforce my feelings of the beginning of the year. There's no support for hard working established editors, when it comes to controversial articles we're just hung out to dry and the larger so called "community" buries their heads in the sand and offers us up as sacrificial lambs. When it does come to dispute resolution the community seems more keen to sanction those editors who are trying to push a neutral point of view, probably because the larger community is too lazy or cowardly to actually go out and do some research of their own. I've never seen a dispute resolution process where any "uninvolved" admin has actually taken the time to read the relevant sources, find out what the dispute is about, and engage constructively. I used to get a lot of pleasure from editing here, but now there is little pleasure for far too much effort. I can't help bu feel there is no "community" here any more, onyl a collection of individuals looking after themselves. Alun (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cat fur
Are you sure this was vandalism? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the closest I could come to it. Considering the article, it very definitely was in very bad taste and I interpreted it as some sort of deliberate provocation, therefore I called it "vandalism" for lack of a better word. I would certainly understand if you disagreed. However, the Babelfish translation of the German caption only mentions "fur coats" not cats, and even less so domestic cats.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll ask the editor if they're sure that is what the image shows. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Place Ville-Marie
Hi there,

I see on your user page that you live in Montreal. I am going to assume that you have heard of Place Ville-Marie in asking you this question. The reports of the number of floors in Place Ville-Marie vary from 43 to 46. Do you, with your Montreal expertise, know the actual number of floors in this structure, or could you possibly visit this building to find out? Thanks,

-Stuck in Edmonton 117Avenue (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Place Ville-Marie has a total of 47 floors, the last three being devoted to the Altitude 737 restaurant complex. The last floor actually rotates upon itself on top of the building itself. Hope it helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 117Avenue (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy
This article, the article on attachment therapy and all the attachment related articles were owned and run for over a year by a sockpuppet army called the "DPeterson entity", found by arbcom to be this chap User:AWeidman. One of the main purposes of the sockpuppets was to promote DDP as an evidence based therapy and the works of Becker-Weidman. This was inserted into well over 20 articles and maintained there by the socks. Attachment therapists real world "enemies" are Advocates for Children in Therapy. This latter article was created by the socks as an attack article. The whole lot were indef. banned back in 2008 2007 but socks and IPs constantly and relentlessly insert the same old sock edits into the same old articles. Becker-Weidman is neither notable nor a suitable source. Neither in fact is DDP particularly notable either. After the sock army was banned this article was rewritten from what sources there were though. The best summary is here. FT2 followed up the new socks and IPs for a while. Now it's MastCell. You can see where I have reported them on his talkpage.Fainites barley scribs 19:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers.Fainites barley scribs 19:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason, grounded in generally policy or practice here, that would preclude adding these references. In addition, the "objections" don't seem to have any basis in policy or practice either, and it appears that the way things work here is that actions should be guided by policy and practice...so if there are not objections grounded in policy and practice, it would seem adding the references would be a good thing as adding them is consistent with the verifiable policy and practice. Abdul Faisel (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I replied on that article's talk page. Please keep the conversation there.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the book is "rejected." What is the policy and practice basis for that? It is a legitimate book published by a legitimate publisher that describes this treatment approach. The attack on me is unfounded and reminds me of what happens at times when I go through security at airports...just because I look like someone doesn't mean I am them or subscribe to their ideology! Abdul Faisel (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

31 hour block
Actually, that one should have been a 24 - I default to 31h on 3RR reports and did it on this one even though it wasn't necessary, as the report was somewhat stale. Yes, the reason behind 31h is to push the block past the user's next window of editing assuming that they edit at the same times of day. In this case, I don't think it matters much though, as the edit-warring party hasn't edited since. Black Kite 21:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ssh, you'll give it away! :) Actually, it's most useful on blatant vandalism coming from educational institutions and shared IP addresses such as internet cafes, as it stops the user just coming back the next morning and starting again - which is why it's on the drop-down list at Special:Block (as is "55 hours"). Black Kite 21:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. And your secret's safe with me... ;-) --Ramdrake (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DDP
Yeah he never stops. Did you note his sock edit on Emily Rosa as well? Fainites barley scribs 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. Looks like a complete minefield over there. I can't think of anybody off hand. I'll ask around.Fainites barley scribs 21:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCabal Case
Hello! My name is Reubzz and I have opened up this mediation cabal case that lists you as a party. Please indicate your acceptance of the mediation process on my talk page and on the case page so we can move quickly towards discussion and resolution of the dispute. The proceedings cannot start unless ALL parties agree to accept the mediation process.

Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement
The mediation case has now opened. Please post your Opening Statement here: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence.

Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediator issue
I have welcomed the assitance of the two more expierenced mediators for the RI case. I hope all is well with the situation and I am sorry if it appeared as me misguiding you about my expierence - please accept my apology if you think of it that way. I am sure with the help of the others, this process can proceed on its path smoothly. Reubzz (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, I actually have alot of expierence with policy debates (to say the least). I actually go to them alot!
 * I appreciate your willingness to continue the process. Long disputes always leave deep rifts, but I am sure that a panel of 3 Mediator Musketeers can resolve it :) Reubzz (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

R/I mediation
I already posted it on the page itself, but I wanted to inform you that you should respond to others' statements next to your own statement. This centralization of viewpoints allows the mediators to see where each person stands rather than having to dig through a long debate to find what people are saying.

Cheers! -- Reubzz (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You recently wrote: "However, re-reading Varoon Arya's comment, I'm thinking fo something else we should probably discuss and agree on: is the article about the "environmental vs hereditarian debate", in which case VA is actually right that it ouccurs betweeen psychometricians and behavioral geneticists mainly, or is it about "race and intelligence as a field of study", in which case my comment just above stands: we need to involve all other fields on a par with psychometricians and behavioral geneticists."

This might well be one of the most sensible comments I've seen on that page thus far. I have always assumed that the "environmentalism vs. hereditarian debate" is the central point of this article, and all of my comments have been written with that in mind. I have not considered the topic to be "race and intelligence as a field of study". Perhaps this has been one of the primary sources of unnecessary confusion. If so, you're right to point it out, and you're also deserving of my thanks.

I guess this has to be clarified before anything else is discussed. But, even if we decide to write about the mainstream scientific view on race in general and any connection with any differences intelligence in particular, in my view there will remain a need for an article which deals with the environmental vs. hereditarian debate in some depth, similar to Creation–evolution controversy. -- Aryaman (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For your entertainment
Here.Fainites barley scribs 20:24, 17 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)


 * Hi, I've not had the time to contribute to the R&I mediation, so I'm just going to scribble my general thoughts about the article here to check we're on the same page.
 * 1. What is 'race'? There's consensus among biologists and geneticists that the traditional folk concept of race doesn't match biological reality, so can intelligence researchers legitimately continue to lump human populations into these categories? Probably not.
 * 2. What is 'intelligence'? IQ may well predict societal success in Western cultures, but is it a validated measure of cognitive abilities? Probably not. As it is possible to improve an IQ score with training, it's not a stable measure of 'intelligence'. Can intelligence researchers continue to use IQ as a catch-all comparator when it is known that it favours modern abstract thinking found in industrialised society? Probably not.
 * 3. What does 'heritable' mean? Hereditarians in the race and intelligence debate argue that heredity = genetic inheritance, but accents are highly heritable and there's probably also a degree of heritability in whether you to go university or not, but the genetic contribution to this heritability is probably very limited.
 * 4. Science isn't done by petition or survey. The 1980s survey of opinions in the field is so out of date that it holds no contemporary value anyway. The list of signatories to 'Mainstream science on Intelligence' is a tiny snap-shot of opinion post-Bell Curve, selected by one of the main hereditarian proponents and somewhat akin to the 'Scientific dissent from Darwinism' or 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' lists.
 * 5. The fact that the bulk of the hereditarians are funded by the Pioneer Fund is a central issue for writing the article. They are a small but vocal minority, and the background of the Pioneer Fund in eugenics and segregation is widely seen to at least partly discredit research that is funded by them. Treating Rushton or Lynn as normal researchers obscures the reality that they head a highly controversial institute.
 * 6. There is no evidence for any specific genetic difference that can explain a difference in cognitive ability between any two human populations.
 * 7. Evidence looking at African-Americans shows no sign that those with more European ancestry have higher IQs. Richard E. Nisbett has presented the evidence for this.
 * 8. There seems to be a bias in the presentation of the article: the hereditarian view is presented first then the opposing view afterwards, which makes it seem as though the hereditarian opinion is the consensus and the opposing view is the minority dissent.
 * 9. An interesting tangent: smarter British kids become anti-racist adults. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront (website)
Clearly that user is not listening and is ignoring our warnings. I've reported him. A8 UDI  21:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

R&I mediation
Do you have any idea what is happening? User:Reubzz hasn't edited WP for about 5 days now. Very odd. Mathsci (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada – United States relations
In response to discussion at Talk:Canada – United States relations, it has been proposed that the lead image at Canada – United States relations be changed from one featuring Canada's Governor General to one featuring Canada's Prime Minister. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Talk:Canada – United States relations. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See?
Fainites barley scribs 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

R&IQ
please weigh in here:! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hope all's well Jean. If you're sick, then turn off your watch page for a while.  You've already made great contributions.  T34CH (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cats
Hello active member of WikiProject Cats! There is currently going to be a discussion about whether or not feline acne should be merged into Cat skin disorders here. Your opinion would be valued.  Bramble  claw  x   22:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My Username
What business of yours is it? Mortetviolachaud (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

R&I mediation
there 's a draft of an outline at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence. You have not yet commented on it, and I am preparing to give the outline to David.Kane (per current agreement in mediation) to enter a draft of the article in mainspace. There will be a review/revision period after the draft is entered in which any issues can be addressed, so if you have no immediate comment, or can't get to the mediation page to make a comment, you can participate in the review and we can address any concerns you still have there.

sorry for the bulk message. -- Ludwigs 2 11:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence, new draft
A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. I am posting this notice to mediation participants in the hopes that those who have not contributed recently to the mediation will come back to review and comment on the draft, and help discuss any revisions that need to be made. You may make any reviews or comments at the mediation page, and we will discuss any revisions that need to be made.

I'd also ask you to leave a note for on his talk page. Whatever your opinion of the draft itself, I think he deserves thanks for putting a lot of time and effort into making the revisions. -- Ludwigs 2 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)