User talk:Thulean/Archive 1

Mediation

 * Hello, I'm going to be mediating your case. However, I'm a bit confused, did you mean White People, as you said at the Mediation Cabal, or White people, as I had understood. Please be aware that I am only a new mediatior, and this is my first case. | A ndonic O   Talk  12:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi...I meant White people. This is the first time I'm hearing about that music band. LOL Thulean 12:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I would like you to read WP:NPOV. I've already told Psychohistorian. Also, please answer messages on the talk page of whomever left you the message; it makes it easier to notice because you get the orange band across the screen. I'll read the article today, and you should be getting an answer on the talk page of the article by tomorrow. Please add White people to your watchlist. Thanks! | A ndonic O   Talk  13:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again Thulean. I just wanted to tell you that I have created the subpage where the mediation will take place. You may see it on the discussion page of the article White people, in my message. Please sign on the "Participants" section whenever you are ready. | A ndonic O   Talk  18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Medation has begun here. | A ndonic O  Talk 19:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand Thulean, that you are bothered by these claims; I would too. I however, think that you should assume good faith, rather than have edit wars and heated discussions (assume bad faith). Both you and Sugaar are following the second link, which will only lead to trouble. I suggest you have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. I will also tell this to Sugaar, who, as I understand, is the person with whom you are arguing the most. I am confidant that the mediation will lead to a positive result, and I hope you do to. | A ndonic O  Talk 01:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I read them earlier today, but it seemed to me that Sugaar was the only one to say anything in mediation. Anyways, shoud I give a similar message to everyone? | A ndonic O  Talk 01:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is, I can't warn them unless it's in mediation. As I said in the above message, Sugaar was the one who most evidently bothered you. However, you should try to ignore them, unless it's true (which I doubt). I just think that the argument went too far, and now you're all mad at each other. I will continue to stress no personal attacks, even though they seem to be occerring on the main talk page. You may want to take a break from White people, and edit other articles while we begin the latter stage of mediation. | A ndonic O  Talk 11:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt you are really Nazi, and all their other claims. | A ndonic O  Talk 11:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that was a mean remark, but perhaps you should stay away from the talk page. The mediation seems to have calmed down a little, and perhaps after we find a solution there, things will not be as heated. |  A ndonic O  Talk 11:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Population section in the White people article
You have now reverted this content over three times in the past 24 hours. This is a violation of the 3RR rule and violation of the 3RR rule is a banishable offense. This is a serious offense and has an expedited system for dealing with it. It is why I wrote that I wouldn't revert your edit for another 24 hours. I recommend that you revert your last reversion. Failure to do so quickly will result in your violation being reported. -Psychohistorian 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR
The link is here Three-revert rule-Psychohistorian 18:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bogus warnings
I would honestly suggest that the two of you should try to avoid each other for a bit until things cool down. I understand there may be a mediation in process, so please continue to use that tool, but, as it says in the personal attack policy please try to focus on the content and don't mention the contributors. Shell babelfish 10:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the warning about your warnings. I was unaware at the time that Sugaar had continued his attacks on the mediation page and was misled to believe that your comments were in reference to statements he made elsewhere. Shell babelfish 00:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Pssst. Created a new White peoples page you can work on. Can't say more.--Getxo 03:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In reference to my talk page, I didn't want you to think that you aren't welcome to contact me. The comment I made was about my dismay that Sugaar had used my talk page to continue his attacks and belittlement of other editors - this wasn't directed at you in any way. Just keep trying to be civil and good luck with the content dispute. Shell babelfish 04:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

RE:White people

 * Yes, I read it, but most posts are by Dark T, it's a one sided discussion. | A ndonic O   Talk  18:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, let's just wait for the mediation to begin, and then we'll see. | A ndonic O   Talk  18:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Attacks
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I've attacked you. If you believe that this is not a mistaken assumption, please point out what names I've called you or in what way I've attacked you.-Psychohistorian 02:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god! You said my claims were absurd!!! That's an attack. Maybe I should create an RFI.-Psychohistorian 16:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thulean, I never once said that I was better than you. I just alluded to the fact that I'm more informed than you on this subject - considering I've spent the greater part of two decades of my adult life studying this subject and have a degree in it and you haven't graduated high school yet, that's an accurate statement.  To use an analogy, assume a person has spent the greater part of two decades studying advanced physics and then he's put in the position of showing a young man that gravity is a constant, but the kid refuses to listen to any number of sources the person provides on algebra and, in fact, throws the sources across the room, cherry picks them to construct half baked ludicrous arguments, and, when quotes are pulled out of those sources and shown to him, he ignores them and continues to cherry pick.  Calling the kid at that point "ignorant" is not an attack.  The person pointing out that he no longer wishes to attempt to educate such a beligerantly uninformed kid (such as when I stated, "an indepth discussion of textual analysis with someone like yourself would be sure to try my patience" or when I said, ""If this point continues to elude you, we can bring in a third party opinion who may be inclined to simplify these issues to the point where you can understand them."") is not an attack.  You are upset because there have been several people who have come in to work on that article (including a geneticist and an anthropologist) who are actually informed on the subject and have pointed out that you are wrong.  You've managed to chase some of them off with your behavour, and those editors who remain who disagree with you are now having RFIs brought against them.-Psychohistorian 17:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't respond to Sugaar at AN/I
You don't have to defend yourself on AN/I at this time; if you respond to Sugaar, it's just likely to continue the argument. I recommend you just let it lie for now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Black people
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Pax vobiscum
I got a wolf ticket too, and I hadn't even edited for a couple of days since I hate edit wars. I have already mentioned the "wolf tickets" to a couple of administrators who know of my own work from a way long time ago. Filll should also be made aware of this abuse. P0M 00:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Sugaar
Since you have been involved in the majority of the dispute, especially the personal attacks, I would appreciate it if you could act as the second certifier for the dispute. Please do not certify if you do not agree with the summary that I have posted. You are welcome to add any information I may have missed. RfCs need to be certified by two of the participants within 48 hours to remain active. Shell babelfish 02:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting the black peopel article
You are causing edit wars left, right, and centre over really trivial and unimportant things. Please for the sake of the article take a break. Kobrakid 19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I got the same kind of remark, insisting I have been making too many edits. Actually, I deleted one line and explained why in the discussion and made a number of corrections to spelling and punctuation. Then I replaced one thing somebody had deleted for very odd reasons. So I'm not impressed with Kobrakid's attitude. I'm not sure what can be done with this two-headed article.


 * Kobrakid seems to be trying to mediate between the two of us, since you reverted a change that I made by adding back in some things that are not supported by the article quoted. If you want to put that kind of thing is you will need to find a quotation that actually supports it. Please continue this discussion either on my talk page or on the article talk page.

P0M 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
There's some pretty extensive vandalism on the Wayne Gretzky page by 64.235.99.3, and142.167.219.131. Which could be reverted but I don't know how to.Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 18:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)