| Revision as of 03:40, 6 January 2015 editAergas (talk | contribs)360 edits →I need your opinion here: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:56, 6 January 2015 edit undoAlon12 (talk | contribs)307 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 422: | Line 422: | ||
| Hi, I'm having a problem with an user that you interacted with shortly ago, the user's name is ], he requested page protection for an article (the one we are having problems with ) and you denied it. The biggest problem with that user is that he continues to remove sourced information, he removed citations to a book, claiming that it was about African Americans, despite that it isn't he then removed it saying that it wasn't a genetic study, but a book "therefore irrelevant"(a peer reviewed book for the matter, but he don't cares) , seeing this, then I added a citation to a genetic study but he continues removing it , saying that is an study about African Americans when the study itself states that: "By comparison, 48 percent who self-reported as Caucasian had more than 95 percent European American ancestry" . When I oppened a discussion in his talk page, instead of discussing he kept saying the same stuff again and insisting that the article is about African Americans when only 37% of the participants in the study were and as I wrote above already, the study clearly talks about the findings in the caucasian participants of the study, after I directly let him know this on his talk page, he moved the goalpost and recurred to the burden of proof fallacy, saying that the cited material does not give enough details, when he has presented zero proof to his own claims: he keeps pushing his edits saying that "the current sources don't say it doesn't support my claims, therefore it does and it's up to you to disprove my baseless claims with sources" when in reality, Misplaced Pages don't admits unsourced assumptions by policy. In the meantime this editor dared me to contact the administrators . I already opened a case in the noticeboard for edit wars , I would be thankful to have your opinion on this. ] (]) 03:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | Hi, I'm having a problem with an user that you interacted with shortly ago, the user's name is ], he requested page protection for an article (the one we are having problems with ) and you denied it. The biggest problem with that user is that he continues to remove sourced information, he removed citations to a book, claiming that it was about African Americans, despite that it isn't he then removed it saying that it wasn't a genetic study, but a book "therefore irrelevant"(a peer reviewed book for the matter, but he don't cares) , seeing this, then I added a citation to a genetic study but he continues removing it , saying that is an study about African Americans when the study itself states that: "By comparison, 48 percent who self-reported as Caucasian had more than 95 percent European American ancestry" . When I oppened a discussion in his talk page, instead of discussing he kept saying the same stuff again and insisting that the article is about African Americans when only 37% of the participants in the study were and as I wrote above already, the study clearly talks about the findings in the caucasian participants of the study, after I directly let him know this on his talk page, he moved the goalpost and recurred to the burden of proof fallacy, saying that the cited material does not give enough details, when he has presented zero proof to his own claims: he keeps pushing his edits saying that "the current sources don't say it doesn't support my claims, therefore it does and it's up to you to disprove my baseless claims with sources" when in reality, Misplaced Pages don't admits unsourced assumptions by policy. In the meantime this editor dared me to contact the administrators . I already opened a case in the noticeboard for edit wars , I would be thankful to have your opinion on this. ] (]) 03:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| To provide some color, Aergas and I were having a discussion on my talk page. I eviscerated all his arguments, including his alleged comments on the extra-european admixture present in white americans, yet, I revealed to him, that spaniards, let alone diluted new world spaniards, such as latin americans, have excess extra-european ancestry vs. white americans. Furthermore, the original article on 'white mexicans' mentioned those of predominant european descent qualifying for 'white mexican', he added a link on a mestizo article, which does not mention anything about the requirement for white mexicans being full-european, rather it confirms the 1808 census definition in which Mexico was under Spanish colonial rule, and the casta system in which 7/8ths europeans were considered criollos was in effect. He has no basis for claiming 'white mexicans' being of 'full-european' descent, rather, it should be reverted to the original 'predominant' european descent. Aergas appears to have english language comprehension issues ] (]) 03:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:56, 6 January 2015
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
 | Note: By default I will respond on whichever talk page a conversation started, but feel free to leave me a message here anyway if you want to get my attention. |
| If you're an uninvolved admin and are here about an administrative action I performed that you disagree with, and it was not the result of some type of discussion close, feel free to change it to what ever you believe the correct outcome is without waiting for me to respond, though a courtesy notice is appreciated. |
Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 December 2014
- From the editor: Looking for new editors-in-chief
- In the media: Wales on GamerGate
- Featured content: Still quoting Iolanthe, apparently.
- WikiProject report: Microsoft does The Signpost
- Traffic report: North Korea is not pleased
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 December 2014
- News and notes: The next big step for Wikidata—forming a hub for researchers
- In the media: Study tour controversy; class tackles the gender gap
- Traffic report: Surfin' the Yuletide
- Featured content: A bit fruity
- Recent research: Misplaced Pages in higher education; gender-driven talk page conflicts; disease forecasting
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I need your opinion here
Hi, I'm having a problem with an user that you interacted with shortly ago, the user's name is User:Alon12, he requested page protection for an article (the one we are having problems with ) and you denied it. The biggest problem with that user is that he continues to remove sourced information, he removed citations to a book, claiming that it was about African Americans, despite that it isn't he then removed it saying that it wasn't a genetic study, but a book "therefore irrelevant"(a peer reviewed book for the matter, but he don't cares) , seeing this, then I added a citation to a genetic study but he continues removing it , saying that is an study about African Americans when the study itself states that: "By comparison, 48 percent who self-reported as Caucasian had more than 95 percent European American ancestry" . When I oppened a discussion in his talk page, instead of discussing he kept saying the same stuff again and insisting that the article is about African Americans when only 37% of the participants in the study were and as I wrote above already, the study clearly talks about the findings in the caucasian participants of the study, after I directly let him know this on his talk page, he moved the goalpost and recurred to the burden of proof fallacy, saying that the cited material does not give enough details, when he has presented zero proof to his own claims: he keeps pushing his edits saying that "the current sources don't say it doesn't support my claims, therefore it does and it's up to you to disprove my baseless claims with sources" when in reality, Misplaced Pages don't admits unsourced assumptions by policy. In the meantime this editor dared me to contact the administrators . I already opened a case in the noticeboard for edit wars , I would be thankful to have your opinion on this. Aergas (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
To provide some color, Aergas and I were having a discussion on my talk page. I eviscerated all his arguments, including his alleged comments on the extra-european admixture present in white americans, yet, I revealed to him, that spaniards, let alone diluted new world spaniards, such as latin americans, have excess extra-european ancestry vs. white americans. Furthermore, the original article on 'white mexicans' mentioned those of predominant european descent qualifying for 'white mexican', he added a link on a mestizo article, which does not mention anything about the requirement for white mexicans being full-european, rather it confirms the 1808 census definition in which Mexico was under Spanish colonial rule, and the casta system in which 7/8ths europeans were considered criollos was in effect. He has no basis for claiming 'white mexicans' being of 'full-european' descent, rather, it should be reverted to the original 'predominant' european descent. Aergas appears to have english language comprehension issues Alon12 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)