User talk:Wobble/archive10

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks
Thanks for doing that! Badgerpatrol 01:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:22pistepirkko.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:22pistepirkko.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is 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. Liftarn 15:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd find this interesting
I know it's the telegraph, but here's a link to the actual study for you next time your on here. 

Btw, theres also studies on similar findings involving the influence from pre-sapien species on modern humans in Asia and Australasia. You should check em when u get a chance, (i'm not gloating here) I told you the patterns were sudden shifts between Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia/New Guinea and were not wholly accounted for by out-of-africa theory. The shifts between the areas shows distinct patterns and is also alot more sudden and drastic then between others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.104.39 (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also:

Neanderthal findings in Abrigo do Lagar Velho, Portugal of 24,500 BP, featuring admixtures with early modern humans, have been published. However, the paleontological analysis of modern human emergence in Europe has been shifting from considerations of the Neanderthals to assessments of the biology and chronology of the earliest modern humans in western Eurasia. This focus, involving morphologically modern humans before 28,000 BP shows accumulating evidence that they present a variable mosaic of derived modern human, archaic human, and Neanderthal features.

Onsite · Offsite Subscription · Feedback

For the podcast crew -- Tawkerbot 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

hello

 * Hi Alun, just giving a friendly hello since it's been a while. I noticed some of your comments on User:Slrubenstein's Talk page and I like the approach you guys have taken with the 'Race' article (much more neutral and referenced on various topics since the last time I read it, although it is quite long). I am going to be editing on here slightly more since I have alot mroe time this year to help edit on Wiki, though I 'm still very busy with my research thesis. I also wanted to make you aware that I found out not only who 'Eoganan' was, but that I knew him (an 'acquaintance' of mine from my high school days). Trust me, he has some very extremist viewpoints on many issues that you have no idea about (the term "loner" doesn't even come close to describing him) but apparently his borderline-insane behaviour on Wikipedia which as you know was nearly connected to myself, was the least of my problems. After taking a summer course at Brock University, about 20 min from my hometown, I ran into him and found out he was also responsible for hacking into my PC last spring and responsible for it crashing (but it did force me to buy my very first laptop, so I'm not complaining now, lol). Supposedly he 'accidentally' forwarded an e-mail which contained some virus he knew nothing about. Anyways, I have noticed that IP's associated with him still appear on here sporadically, so I'll keep an eye out for this abrasive individual. Anyway, I hope all is well, keep up the good edits. Ciao. Epf 13:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

 * Hey Alun, yes indeed you are correct and I should of just let it go. Clearly there was no need or basis for Ramdrake to re-vert to the much less neutral and lesssupported version of the other user (the user had consistently re-worded references he had entered to support his own statements, which also were not matched whatsoever by the content of the sources themselves). If Ramdrake was really upholding the policy, he would have left the article as is. I will drop it though for now and wait another 24 hours before I make another edit/re-vert at that specific article. Anyways, how are things with you ? Epf 15:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Alun I would hardly call my last edit 'tendentious', as you can see for yourself, but I know you're taking advantage of the fact I can't re-vert till tomorrow (part of the rules, I'm not complaining). I have however explained my case extensively and persistently on the Talk:Ethnic group page and at User talk:Slrubenstein on this matter for the past couple of days. Unless someone (hint, hint) rolls back to my more verified and NPOV version, I suppose I will have to wait until tomorrow to correct the current biased version (which in fact is very evident of tendentious edits by Slrubenstein). Ciao. Epf 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 33
   '''Great news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 33 has been released!'''

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/10/26/wikipedia-weeekly-30/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly —  WODU P (? ) 07:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

R&I – a new approach
R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Savignac
Don't waste too much time fighting with this one, I think he/she just likes to argue... I mean, just look at my talk page... futurebird 17:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And what is pushing the "purity" of the "white race" if not snobbery and racism? Your comment displays a breathtaking double standard. Alun 06:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Rjd0060 06:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"My response on User talk:Rjd0060: What are you talking about? Did you actually read the section I removed from Talk:Race debate? I suspect not, it was a rambling essay soapboxing the personal theories of an editor why has consistently made personal attacks against other editors and racist comments on talk pages. I was merely following the rule that wikipedia is not a soapbox. For doing this I get warned by you? I'm just really angry now, possibly your warn was not a mistake and you knew exactly what you were doing? You think personal attacks and soapboxing on talk pages are OK? Alun 06:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)"

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Rjd0060 06:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think SOAP is referring to articles themselves, not the talk pages. Anyhow, I didn't see the personal attacks.  But it is clear that you removed more than just personal attacks.  Also, per an arbcom ruling (which Im sorry I cannot locate at the moment) removing personal attacks is a touchy subject.  If you really feel that you are being personally attacked, or another users is attacking somebody, feel free to report them.  Please do not remove comments just because you do not agree with them, unless of course they do blatantly violate some policy.  I do however, as an un-biased third party, see an edit war going on that you are directly involved with.   - Rjd0060 06:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to be unbiased to me, you seem to be perfectly happy to let people introduce irrelevant racist essays into talk pages, but give warnings to good faith editors who think talk pages are for discussing articles, rather than making irrelevant and racist personal statements. Have you read the talk page guidelines recently? Alun 06:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is certainly your opinion, which you are entitled to. But I will say I am not going to involve myslef any further in this, other than remind you both not to violate WP policies such as 3RR. - Rjd0060 06:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wobble/Alun (whatever): Perhaps you didnt see the comment above that said I have nothing more to say on the matter. - Rjd0060 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's what user talk pages are for isn't it? Can't admit when you are wrong then? Just run away after stoking things up? you say: I think SOAP is referring to articles themselves, not the talk pages."Removed from User talk:Rjd0060 by User:Rjd0060: Have you read the talk page guidelines recently? Clearly you believe it is now acceptable not to discuss the actual article at all on talk pages, but to discuss personal theories and ignore the article completely. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, this clearly applies to talk pages as well, talk pages are for discussing articles, nothing more, nothing less (see Talk page guidelines esp Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues.) You have made me very angry with your spurious warning. I'm going away for a bit because I don't want to edit when I am angry, it only leads to bad feelings. Yes I am involved with attempting to stop an single individual removing reliably sourced material from the article African diaspora against consensus, but you only seem to be able to see 'reverts' and not the facts on the ground. At the very least if you are going to get involved you should make yourself au fait with the facts of any given situation. Alun 06:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)" Typical, give someone some power and they think they are infallible. Get your facts straight before barging in like a bull in a china shop, and if you make a mistake then admit it and apologise. Alun 07:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Look. I do apologize, now that Jeeny has explained something to me. I shouldn't have been so quick to add that template to your page. I really do apologize for that. However, I didn't want to involve myself in your dispute, and I clearly stated that, yet you continued to try and get me to become involved. That was unnecessary also. As far as re-adding the info to the talk page, I admit i didnt read every single word of it. After a closer look I see some personal attacks, amongst other things. I am now neutral on the issue of whether it should be removed or not. Feel free to remove it. - Rjd0060 07:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll leave it for the time being, possibly archive it in a few days, I don't think the material serves any ral purpose, but archiving is probably a less inflammatory thing to do than just blanking. Hope we can just get along now? Sorry if I pesterred you on your talk page, I know it can be irritating, I suppose I got a bee in my bonnet. All the best. Alun 07:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything is fine now. Sorry.  I am used to doing a lot of RC patrol and Im sure you know it is a quick go thing. - Rjd0060 07:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG
Don't respond anymore he/she/s having a meltdown. futurebird 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right. I do have a habit of getting sucked into absurd discussions. I suppose it's a personality fault of mine. While other users are studiously not feeding the troll I am busilly pumping it full of sugar. I should learn when to shut up. Thanks for the message. Alun 14:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some things I can't ignore, why is he/she talking about Jews now? This is getting so over the top it's absurd! futurebird 14:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the true aim is to strip the article of information, tag it as a pseudo issue and turn it into a stinking battleground where nobody wants to edit. "Melt-downs" are just a part of the show, often appearing in Act II if Act I fails to have desired effect. Unfortunately, this is utterly predictable--it's not exactly a first when it comes to articles about the African Diaspora. All left to wonder about is which article will be targeted next. That said, now about your edit summary: "how can you claim that you are awaiting sources, you just removed the source yourself!!! besides all wikipedia sections contain materia from multiple sources". Wobble, sorry, but the source does not state what the article says it does at the moment. There is no such conclusion reported in the study. I've read it four times, back and forth, just to make sure. It states nothing of the kind, I'm afraid. It's crucial to stick to the facts or you'll feed the troll circus. Please e-mail me if either of you need (private) access to the original document. Afv2006 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: In case I'm simply missing it, please quote the section that conveys the information "about 70% of white Americans have no detectable African ancestry at all (along with 5.5% of black Americans), other than the African ancestry shared by all humans, while the remainder (30%) have some detectable African ancestry, averaging 2.3%, probably from ancestors who passed through the endogamous color line from black to white" from the article used as a source, namely Mark D. Shriver and others, "Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping," Human Genetics, 112 (2003), 387-99. I just cannot find that idea, those numbers or even similar implications expressed in the article. Thanks. Afv2006 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for your kind note. My main concern though is actually not what percentages are used to describe European Americans' genetic ancestry, but simply that this type of tangential edit war over the ancestry of self-identified European Americans has to take place in the article about the African diaspora. I don't think that the aim or basic idea is that European Americans should be given more space in this article because the coverage of Europeans on Wikipedia is so weak and spotty, and there is so much edit warring over the ancestry of Europeans and the views and examination of the DNA of world populations outside the European sphere of interest is simply overpowering? ;) Still, that is the result of the dispute in question. It is not as if the discussion about how the search for roots by means of DNA by self-identified African Americans of the African diaspora is threatening to overpower the current coverage of the European American issue in this article — note that there is NO coverage WHATSOEVER about this search for African roots, or how "DNA rewrites history for African-Americans", as the headlines go in the popular press. IMO the European American issue over whether some percentage of people clustered around the 20 to 40 units skin pigmentation range ("white European Americans") have more than the average 0.7% African ancestry (as per the article) is only tangential in this article about the African diaspora, and way secondary to this search for roots and ancestry. (The range mentioned is taken from the article in question, which states that "the sample of European Americans at State College, Pa have 0.7% (±0.9%) African ancestry", and "13 individuals born in different African countries and their pigmentation values range between 46 and 70 M index units. The range in persons showing 100% European ancestry is 20 to 40 units.") Also: Unless Frank W. Sweet is writing about the African diaspora, I'm afraid I'd consider him to also be of only tangential interest to the issue at hand (which, as I have to remind myself, is the African diaspora, not European Americans). Maybe the discussion about his credentials therefore could also take place on a page where his ideas are more directly relevant to the topic at hand?
 * "Concerning Fig. 2b (I'm putting this by itself, because I consider it a small, secondary issue compared to the above and I'm not too concerned about it): My problem with your description of the article is that the article demonstrates the results for a particular, rather small, sample and does not seem to draw the wide, general conclusions you seem to favor for it. Table 2, according to the description on p. 391, shows that the European Americans at State College, Pa have 96.1% (±1.6%) European ancestry, 0.7% (±0.9%) African ancestry, and 3.2% (±1.6%) Native American ancestry. The 3.9 % figure (=0.7% African + 3.2% Native American ancestry) is, I assume, what has been excluded when Figure 2b is introduced. Fig 2b demonstrates the distribution of the 96.1% European ancestry within the sample. The headline that goes with it says that it shows 'Distribution of percent European genetic contribution as estimated by using 34 AIMs in a sample of European Americans living in State College, Pa.'"
 * I think the wider issue of different percentages of African ancestry in self-identified European Americans is a very interesting topic that deserves attention — it's just that I don’t think it has more than a marginal interest in the articles relating to the African diaspora. In spite of the differences in opinions, no hard feelings. Best, Afv2006 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Practice vs Practise
Practice is the noun - practise is the verb - so 'practising' was correct - see Rosalind Franklin - same goes for Licence vs License. source: SOED. Rgrds, Ian Cairns 19:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 34
   '''zOMG! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 34 has been released, and it's the biggest panel in quite a while!'''

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/11/03/wikipedia-weekly-34-aka-fundraiser/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — W<font color="#191970">ODU P  05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Hey (again)!
Thanks! My very first barnstar!!! :)--Ramdrake 21:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)