User talk:Saturdayseven

Race, Evolution, Behavior
Thanks for the note. Here are my specific issues:


 * Asserting what are the two important predictions of Rushton's first paper seem like unnecessary detail.


 * Asserting that genetic cluster analysis supports Rushton's tri-level violates WP:NOR


 * The assertion regarding native americans needs to be referenced.


 * Favorable citations should be about the book, not about the author.

Hope this explains my revert. --JereKrischel 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Race%2C_Evolution_and_Behavior, and let's see if we can discuss your concerns with the current article, and come to some compromise, before engaging in an unproductive edit-war. Thanks! --JereKrischel 17:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This whole effort will be much more productive if you participate on the Talk:Race%2C_Evolution_and_Behavior and come to a consensus before making controversial edits. Please help me work with you, before adding disputed text to the article again.  Thanks! --JereKrischel 23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, take a breath, let's spend at least an hour to discuss the issue before blanket reverting and adding your positive personal reviews of Rushton. This edit war is not worth it.  We're both treading on WP:3RR, and if we don't come to some sort of consensus, together, we're both going to be blocked.  Please, I'm trying to help address your concerns, but I can't do that if you won't discuss the issue before proceeding. --JereKrischel 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It takes two to have a revert war. Why are you trying to blame me. I'm talking just as much on the talk page as you are. Saturdayseven


 * I'm sorry, it seems this isn't working out. I'll have to report both of us for violating WP:3RR, and we'll both be blocked from editing, allowing other editors a chance to be more constructive regarding the article.  I'm not trying to blame you at all, but apparently I'm not communicating well with you.  My apologies, and I hope that after the block period, you're willing to come back to edit in good faith on the article. --JereKrischel 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You've been reported for violating WP:3RR, and I've reported myself as well. I've suggested that you only receive a warning for your violation, since you're relatively new here.  Hopefully tomorrow we can be more constructive with each other. --JereKrischel 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The details I added are all cited. I don't know why you panic every time something other than Rushton-bashing is added to the article.  Just take a deep breath and realize that the additions I made to the article are simply to add balance, and had you not reverted them so aggressively, I would have moved on to other articles by now. Saturdayseven
 * The details you added are improperly cited, please see the specifics on Talk:Race%2C_Evolution_and_Behavior. Your citations are either from unreliable sources, or mistaken citations (citing a quote from one person to a different author, for example).  Your additions are not adding balance, they are expanding the scope of the article beyond the book, and onto the person.  Other editors will come and weigh in, I'm sure, and if you want to add balance, I think you'll end up needing to abide by some basic rules.  My apologies again for being unable to communicate to you effectively, as I said, I'll wait an obligatory 24 hours before reverting your inappropriate changes, and hopefully we can draw in other editors to help mediate our dispute.  --JereKrischel 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR
Pro-actively citing research which may support Rushton's claims is engaging in WP:NOR. --JereKrischel 06:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your desire to violate WP:NOR in this case, as a way of supporting Rushton's theories. I may just as well desire to violate WP:NOR, and place numerous studies, unspecific to Rushton, vacating the biological concept of race in the article as well.  This wouldn't help us build a better article, but only turn it into a long, drawn-out POV war.


 * We need to keep the article to a brief overview of Rushton's book. It is not a place to argue over the details of his theories, or to engage in a debate on the topic he covers. --JereKrischel 07:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, unless you can find a citation for what you believe are the "two important predictions" (that is, someone prominent published saying "these are the two important predictions from Rushton's paper"), it's simply your opinion. Further, the article is not on his 1998 paper, it is on his book. --JereKrischel 06:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR
I don't think you realize how important WP:3RR is to avoiding edit wars, and I don't think that anything I say will convince you of that. I hope that an administrator will be able to communicate more effectively with you, and if that just means a single warning that causes you to behave differently, great. Hopefully, as a new user, you'll learn this lesson quickly, and won't be inspired to engage in edit wars in the future. Teaching you constructive ways of contributing to Wikipedia isn't a waste of administrator time, as I hope you'll agree. --JereKrischel 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you lecturing about violating rule you also violated? Saturdayseven


 * I don't mean to lecture you. As important as it is for me to remember this rule, it is important for you to learn this rule.  At this point, I understand what I did wrong, have apologized, and self-reverted back to right before my fourth revert to beg forgiveness.  I'm hoping that a third party will be able to help you understand what you did wrong.  I don't expect you to listen to me, but hopefully someone else will be able to communicate more effectively with you. --JereKrischel 01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours
For violating the 3 revert rule on Race, Evolution and Behavior. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Life history theory
Kozlowski & Wiegert, 1986, I believe predate Rushton's use of the term. --JereKrischel 07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Carson, 1959 (Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 24:1959 87-105) predates it by a considerable amount, and is cited by Robert K. Selander Systematic Zoology > Vol. 16, No. 3 (Sep., 1967), pp. 286-287. --JereKrischel 07:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You Need To Quit Vandalizing The Oprah Page
Wikipedia is not a fanpage. You need to keep your opinions to yourself.75.72.35.253 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC) So help me, I will report you if you continue to be biased and violate the NPOV policy. You can be an Oprah fan, but you cannot use Wikipedia as a fanpage. The Daily Beast is also quite a reliable news source and doesn't violate the BLP verifiable source policy.75.72.35.253 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Also, you have nothing reliable to suggest that Esters lied because Oprah refused to promote her book and you may not say that Oprah's parents were teenagers at the time of her birth when other content on the page shows that her father was born in 1933 and that Oprah was born in 1954 or biased statements like that Esters is a not a reliable resource because of where she lived at the time Oprah claimed she was molested. Where you also not aware that Esters could have made this claim to shows ET or The Insider as well; Kitty Kelley wasn't the only person she could've gone to. Read the Fancraft policy too.75.72.35.253 (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Asian American article Undue template discussion
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (Using )

South Asia
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at South Asia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please do not vandalize this article with completely nonsensical unreferenced content as you did here. Do so again, and I will have to report you to an admin Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)