Revision as of 20:54, 21 July 2007 editDeeptrivia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,409 edits →"Mix" Argument: ps← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:02, 6 January 2024 edit undoTheImaCow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers84,942 edits Notification: proposed deletion of File:US Census 2000 race definitions.PNG.Tag: Twinkle | ||
(188 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{not around|3=September 11, 2008}} | |||
{{Archive box|]}} | |||
{{Archive box|]]}} | |||
== Template:<s>Thomas Huxley</s>Carolus Linnaeus Racial Definitions == | |||
Hi dark tea, I look forward to your "Platonic Racial Definitions with Australia" template. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">]</span> 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Interracial Marriage== | |||
== Use of "necessarily" in East Asia article == | |||
Do you know any statistics of marriages between Latinos and other groups? ] 07:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:On the internet, there are statistics involving Hispanic exogamy but they incorrectly give Hispanics the distinction of being their own race, comparing their exogamy with other races rather than non-Hispanics. Hispanic is not a race, so I haven't added it to the interracial marriage article and I have been careful to not include interracial statistics which botch their data by including Hispanic as a race.----<sup>]</sup>]] 08:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Do you know the statistics of interracial marriages recorded last year and this year? ] 08:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::I have not found them on the internet, but I haven't been looking specifically for 2007 or 2008 statistics.----<sup>]</sup>]] 08:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
==IP range block== | |||
Hi Dark Tea. I wanted to bring your attention to my undoing of one of your edits in case I misunderstood your intention. You removed the word "necessarily" from the second sentence in this sequence: "In the various "Color" terminology for race, indigenous East Asians are often thought of as the "yellow people" or the "yellow race" in Western culture. East Asians themselves don't necessarily use these terms to refer to themselves." Your comment says "removed the word "necessarily" per WP:WTA on absolutes which advance a point of view." | |||
{{unblock reviewed|1=My IP has been affected by a range block intended to target another IP editor, but my account shows that I'm a good editor.|decline='''Clearing an autoblock''' | |||
Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are ] or blocked because of your ]. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions: | |||
Actually, removing the word makes the sentence absolute, because it is preceded by "not." So the previous version of the sentence suggests that some East Asians refer to themselves with the terms "yellow people" or "yellow race," whereas the version without "necessarily" states that no East Asians refer to themselves that way. Although the color terms are definitely controversial in East Asia, some East Asians do use them. Japanese rappers, for example, frequently call themselves "kin iroi yatsu" (yellow guys), especially when calling for uniquely Japanese or pan-Asian hip-hop practices. | |||
# If you have a Misplaced Pages account, please ensure that you are logged in. <br> Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are. <br> If it isn't, try ]. | |||
I wonder, however, if we even need to bring this up on the East Asia entry? Frankly, I'm not sure why the color terminology is even there. Any objections to removing it altogether?] 15:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
# Try to . | |||
:I have no objections to removing it altogether.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
# If you are still blocked, copy the <tt>{{]|...}}</tt> code generated for you under the "'''<u>IP blocked?</u>'''" section. This is usually hidden within the "'''<u>What do I do now?</u>'''" section. If so, just click the "''''''" link to the right hand side to show this text. | |||
::Done! Thanks for your input. ] 21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
# Paste the code at the <u>bottom</u> of ] and click save. | |||
If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. <!-- from ] --> — <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
== "Mix" Argument == | |||
<nowiki>{{unblock-ip|71.107.178.165}}</nowiki> | |||
Dear Dark Tea. Just letting you know that researches such as and others show there's no such thing as the "Pure Caucasoid" individual. ] strictly applied in light of such DNA tests shows, for example, that a significant number of White Americans have some sub-Saharan African or Native American ancestry, and leaves few perfectly White-looking people in your definition of the Caucasoid category. Also, regarding the long obsolete 1890 ethnography map, it shows the coexistence of Aryan and Dravidian people in North India, and not necessarily their mixing. Your edits also contradict what the text of the article has to say. Please consider reverting your edits. ] (]) 18:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:If it is true that some Northwest Indians are not mixed with Dravidians, then it would be OR to have an editor decipher the race of a Northwest Indian.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 18:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Please follow the above instructions exactly, or we cannot unblock you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:: Well, please read ] about South Asians. It is well documented that ]s, like the rest of ]s are Caucasian. On the other hand, the picture that really ought to be removed is probably the Kalash girl. This is what the article on Kalash people says: "However, recent genetic testing among the Kalash population has shown that they are, in fact, a distinct (and perhaps aboriginal) population with only minor contributions from outside peoples. In one cluster analysis with K = 7, the Kalash form one cluster, the others being Africans, Europeans/Middle Easterners/South Asians, East Asians, Melanesians, and Native Americans." ] (]) 18:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Where is the "''IP blocked?''" section?----<sup>]</sup>]] 09:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::It is well documented that the original Indo-Aryans were Caucasian until they moved into India and mixed with the Dravidians. If Kalash are relatively unmixed with Dravidians, this says nothing about the rest of the inhabitants of India.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Obsessions with Indians== | |||
:::: Please cite some references that state that Indo-Aryans ceased to be Caucasians once they moved to India. Also, in that case, please propose to remove the statements from reliable sources all over wikipedia that say that Indo-Aryans are Caucasians. Exteranl sources like would all agree too. And the Kalash unmixing argument says that they are aboriginals, and therefore not Caucasians. Thanks, ] (]) 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::: I'll add an image again, as I think it adds value to the article by addressing a common confusion that White is synonymous with Caucasian race, and because there is no ambiguity in reliable sources regarding ambiguity of Indo-Aryans being Caucasians. You are welcome to discuss this issue on the talk page. Please do not remove the image before discussing. Regards, ] (]) 19:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Why are you obsessed with Indians when you are of Japanese ancestry? You seem to be on a rampage to prove that Indians are not caucasians and wish to lump them in with mongoloids (both in the Asian American article where you insist on including Indians and in the mongoloid article where you insist on including indians). It sounds like you are jealous of the caucasoid features of many Indians and wish to lump them in with mongoloids. ] (]) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::::When the Indo-Aryans moved into India they were doubtlessly still Caucasians. Only when they mixed with Dravidians did they stop becoming Caucasian. Regardless of what other articles on Misplaced Pages say, Misplaced Pages cannot be used a source for itself. Dr. Koenraad Est with a masters in Indo-Iranian Studies and a Ph.D. in Hindu Revivalism says, says, ''If an Aryan or other invasion is assumed, this evidence shows that all castes are biologically the progeny of both invaders and natives, though perhaps in different proportions. Conversely, if the genetic distance between two castes is small, this still leaves open the possibility that the castes or their communal identities can nonetheless have divergent origins, even foreign versus native, although these are obscured to the geneticist by centuries of caste mixing.'' ----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 19:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I don't respond to personal attacks. They are part of the Asian race, although some people disagree. If you were the IP editor who made the deletion of citations on the Mongoloid article recently, remember to next time log in to Misplaced Pages. Also, remember Misplaced Pages works by citations, not opinions.---<sup>]</sup>]] 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Race stuff == | |||
::::::::: Bharatvani, Voiceofdharma, and other 'Hindu revivalist' websites are not reliable sources on wikipedia. Please read ]. Please read the source you yourself cited again. It says: "The Caucasoids are found practically all over the country" . Please check dictionary definitions, such as and . I'm not saying there's no mixing, but only that there has been mixing all over the world, and such mixing is not much relevant in defining the term. Little while ago, you wrote in one of the edit summaries that the court rulings found Indians to be Caucasians. Please make up your mind and be clear about it in light of all these sources. I can mention more sources if you want. I hope you at least read the first sentence of the article. Regards, ] (]) 19:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::] says, "''Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand''". Notice Dr. Koenraad Elst is not a Hindu Revivalist, although he received his Ph.D. in Hindu Revivalism, but is disciplined in Indo-Iranian studies. While it is true Elst claims that the Caucasoids are found all over India, he also claims India is wholly mixed in different proportions. It is possible to label a person "Caucasoid" when they have Dravidian ancestry as well. That is to say there are many Caucasoids in India and many Dravidians. It's just that they overlap because they're mixed. The Supreme Court a while back found Indians to be Caucasian in race. This says nothing since it also found them to be Asian in race which holds to current times. Of course, you'll find other sources for both POVs because it's a contentious issue. I don't feel the picture should be in the article, unless it illustrates the debate.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 19:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hi, you've done a good job with the articles about the Caucasian race and Mongoloid race, so I was thinking if you could maybe take a look at the Negroid article some day? ] (]) 03:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::: There's no debate among scholars on this. This issue is pretty clear. Indo-Aryans ''are'' Caucasians, and nobody denies this. Even the supreme court decisions were about ''white'' or ''not white'', as you correctly pointed out. You have not shown a single source claiming that they ceased to be Caucasians at any point. Even the mixing argument is not based on any evidence or source. The sources, are, in fact, contrary: "Thus (according to Sengupta et al. 2006) current upper Aryan castes in India mostly contain Y-haplogroups R1a1 (45%), R2 (16%) and H (13%). The Aryan tribal groups and lower castes actually consist of subdued Dalits and possibly mysterious Dasya, as the high presence of H (24-33%) and R1a1 (10-26%) shows. Dravidian lineages (L, J2a) are generally rare in Indian Aryans (but possibly much common in Pakistan), which also indicates that Dravidians didn't occupy the whole territory of India before the Aryan invasion - only the Indus Valley." ] (]) 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Although I would like to contribute to that article, I'm afraid of being accused of being a racist if I contribute to that article.----<sup>]</sup>]] 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::I'm not saying Indo-Aryans ceased to be Caucasian. The Indo-Aryans are Caucasian, but their progeny with Dravidians are not. The Elst source shows this. I would like to ] your "Sengupta" source. What is its URL?----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Nah, the main problem with that article was that the user ] "owned" the article, but he has now been blocked indefinitely as a massive sockpuppet-master. Another user with ownage problems in relation to that article, ], has been blocked indefinitely too. I think if anything, you'd make the article even less POV, as you always use citations, contrary to many other people who edit such articles. ] (]) 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::] is an African editor who made where they removed a citation about the existence of physical and mental racial differences. I think my citations about physical and mental differences will be removed by this editor.----<sup>]</sup>]] 04:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::Hmmm, You made it very clear that it was a controversial view and all that, but it wasn't sourced, which is problematic for controversial material. Deeceevoice seems to be a sane person, contrary to Muntuwandi and Jeeny, so a talk page discussion could probably solve eventual differences, and there probably won't be problems if statements are sourced. I'll throw in my "two cents" if discussion gets heated, as I think I and Deecevoice are on good terms. ] (]) 04:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Rachel Milford== | |||
The paper is from the American Journal of Human Genetics: | |||
There's no "Rachel Milford" - there are ] and ], two individuals. | |||
:Sengupta S, Zhivotovsky LA, King R, Mehdi SQ, Edmonds CA, Chow CE, Lin AA, Mitra M, Sil SK, Ramesh A, Usha Rani MV, Thakur CM, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Majumder PP, Underhill PA, : "Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists." ''American Journal of Human Genetics'', 2006, p. 202-221 | |||
I'm really curious where you are getting your references - in this case it's obviously not from the book itself or a facsimile like Amazon Preview or Google Books, but must be some secondary source where the names were garbled. | |||
*Let me summarize again: | |||
:* Most dictionary definitions, encyclopedia articles and other sources (such as and ) include most ''present'' Indians, with all the "mixes", in the Caucasian category. This includes the definition that has been the opening statement of this article for years. This by itself should have been enough. | |||
It's an excellent book about the ] - I recommend obtaining the book or reading a facsimile. --] (]) 05:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
:* Research shows all people are mixed to some extent. There's nothing like pure Caucasians. So, the argument that mixing makes the current Indo-Aryans of S. Asia (which are always still identified Indo-Aryans and not as something else) non-Caucasians does not hold any more than the statement that current Europeans are non-Caucasian. | |||
:I remember she had two last names in Google Books. Perhaps one is a maiden name.----<sup>]</sup>]] 07:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Here's the that clearly shows the two authors' names. It was the first search result for the title and took a couple of seconds to find. What source are you looking at? --] (]) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
::I was looking at Google books.----<sup>]</sup>]] 23:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Using Talk Page for Sandbox before August 22== | |||
:* In any case, peer reviewed research like that by Sengupta shows that the mixing has been rare. | |||
My home IP is being affected by a range IP block, targeting a dynamic IP vandal, so I am going to be using this space for collecting citations until August 22. The block ends August 22.----<sup>]</sup>]] 07:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Email? == | |||
:* Contrary to your interpretation, ] (I'm quite familiar with this beliefs), is suggesting something totally different in the article you cited. He's giving evidence in support of the ] theory that claims that all Caucasians originated in India (see also ]). | |||
Dark Tea, could you email me? Want to say something privately (not bad, don't worry!). Hope this is allowed. Email from my page, or just send to fiona2211814 at gmail dot com. Thanks. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Think about it with an open mind, there's always something new to learn. ] (]) 20:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I do not want to talk with Misplaced Pages editors via email.----<sup>]</sup>]] 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
::It appears that you want the definition of a Caucasian to be anybody with at least partial Caucasian ancestry. Don't add a picture of a person with a strongly Dravidian appearence, because it may not be true that they would have Caucasian ancestry.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 20:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Blocked == | |||
::: I don't ''want'' the definition to be such-and-such, and what I "want" the definition to be, or what "I think" the correct definition is, is not relevant on wikipedia. As all sources point out, and as the article already correctly states, most South Asians belong to the category. It could turn out that the Indian girl's appearance is more Caucasian than that of the European girl's appearance, based on the criteria the anthropologists use to define the category (e.g. relative proportions of bone sizes in the skull, etc.) I wonder what criteria did you employ in concluding that she had a strongly Dravidian appearance. ] (]) 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Yes, the sources say that most Indians are Caucasian because most (maybe all) Indians are Caucasian/Dravidian mixes. Consequently, I feel that your picture would be alright if the person didn't look all Dravidian, because it may not be true that s/he would have Caucasian ancestry.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
I'm blocking you for 3 months, though it really should be indef. As documented at ] , you have systematically, over the last 3 years, fouled up an entire topic-area. Our "race" articles are all in a complete mess, and I reckon 70 percent of this to be your fault. Your credulous italicized inclusion of any lengthy quote from anyone, so long as it looks impressive, is simply unacceptable: reverting to re-include such junk is essentially vandalism. Particularly when attached to a distinct "racialist" agenda, as far as I can make out. ] (]) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::There are also ] people in India (]). However, let me assure you that the distinction between Caucasian and non-Caucasian is not based on skin color, and Rajasthanis are all Caucasians. Regards, ] (]) 20:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I'll assure you Rajasthanis are all Caucasian, because India is mostly if not all Caucasian/Dravidian mixes.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
<nowiki>{{unblock|1=] has chosen to not discuss their differing opinions regarding the content of an article they had a dispute with me about, but instead has misused their administrator powers to block and editor who has disagreed with them. The correct action would have been to discuss their differing opinion on the article's talk page rather than blocking the editor who disagrees with them. ] says that I use quotations from reliable sources to "look impressive", however I have ] that I use quotations from sources to avoid miscontruing their statements. I have almost exclusively been editing the ]/] articles and their related ], ] and ] articles, because I am Asian/Mongoloid in race. These articles were skewed toward a white bias which did not represent a neutral point of view, so I felt compelled to have them reflect an Asian point of view. Similarly, ], a black editor, edited the ] article exclusively because they represented white views but not black views. They were similarly banned when they entered into a content dispute with a white editor who wanted the black people article to represent the white views of the issue. This editor, like myself, did not break any rules. When a normal editor and an editor with administrator priviledges enter into a content dispute, the situation should not end with the editor with administrator priviledges abusing their blocking power.}}</nowiki> | |||
::::::::: Yeah, we're all mixes. There are no pure races. It's only the extent of mixing that counts, and the mixing has been rarer between Caucasian/Dravidian than between Caucasians and other groups like Negroid or Native American in Europe/America. Regards, ] (]) 20:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" | |||
|- | |||
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | ] | |||
| style="padding: 0.1em" | | |||
'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s): | |||
<br><br>Your block was made by {{user|Moreschi}}, an administrator who is engaged in a content dispute on Caucasian race with you, as shown . This block patently violated the ], which states: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". I'm therefore lifting the block without consultation with the blocking admin and will post this action at ] for review. – I have no opinion about either side's arguments' merits in the underlying content dispute. | |||
''Request handled by:'' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> | |||
|} | |||
*Just a comment, this user seems to have been blocked simply for having a POV different from the blocking admin. That's pretty bad. Dark Tea's edits were obviously in good faith, and it seems that the admin has forgotten to assume good faith, since he/she just blocks editors for assuming "racialist agendas". I assume this admin is abusing his/her powers. In fact, Dark Tea edited all race related articles almost equally, simply adding sourced statements to them. Hardly "foul", and in any case, the block was way too premature, since the admin didn't even ''attempt'' to discuss the edits with Dark Tea. ] (]) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
<br> | |||
*I never feel the need to comment on someone being blocked, but I am a little surprised at this one, as it seems to be unwarranted and a possible abuse of administrator powers. I don't do much editing on the ] article, but I've been following it daily. Just the other day, ] started making major deletes and just said on the talk page that he thought it was sh** without much discussion or consensus. It seems to me that ] only reinserted what he felt to be cited material and was automatically blocked without warning? Seems a bit excessive to me. ] (]) 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:*It should be noted that my comments are based only on my observation of the ] article and not any of the other disputes that may have happened on other race-related articles. ] (]) 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Topic ban == | |||
After reading your edits to various articles, I have come to the conclusion that your editing on topics related to ] is unhelpful to the development of those articles. Since you have previously been warned of such problems, I am enacting a topic ban on you of any article relating to race. This means that you cannot edit any article which is functionally related to that topic. If you do so, you can be blocked from the project by any administrator for a suitable period. Thanks, ] 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
: Black Kite, by what authority are you issuing this ban? To my knowledge, unless Dark Tea is editing in a ArbCom enforcement area, we can't just issue a vague topic ban on one admin's say-so. --]]] 02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:: See your talkpage. ] 20:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::: Alright, Dark Tea, please disregard Black Kite's above message. You are not topic-banned at this time. There is still discussion going on at ANI and the ] though. I'm personally not that familiar with this topic area, so I can't tell what the fuss is about. I see people complaining about Dark Tea's edits, but without providing solid diffs that prove a problem. And I see no history of warnings to Dark Tea's talkpage either. --]]] 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
== An ANI thread about you == | |||
There is an ANI thread about you at ]. ] (]) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
: Hiya, Dark Tea, since you haven't been online in a couple days, the thread eventually died out and has been archived (ANI gets archived very rapidly). To see what ''was'' said, check ]. Any comments you may have in reply, should probably be placed here at your talkpage. Thanks, --]]] 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
==September 2008== | |||
In the arbitration case ] a general sanction was established allowing uninvolved administrators to issue topic bans to editors who fail to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies in the locus of dispute, ] broadly construed. Please read the case and familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, especially ]. Your editing history shows a consistent tendency to give undue weight to fringe ideas, and to promote pseudoscientific ideas. Should these problems continue, you may be subject to the remedies provided by that case. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
: According to the case, "Pseudoscience" is defined loosely as all articles in ] and its subcategories. Which of those articles has Dark Tea been editing? Which pseudoscientific ideas is it claimed that Dark Tea is promoting? --]]] 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::A quick look at the user's contribution history will reveal numerous examples of the user adding irrelevant material to Misplaced Pages for the purpose of pushing pseudoscientific ideas. For instance, recent edit to ]. Please check the user's contribution history in detail and you will see the pattern. Your help is welcome. If we can inform the user as to the nature of the problem, they perhaps can be guided in a more productive direction. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::: Thank you for the diff. I agree that on first glance, it was a questionable edit, and that the name of Dr. Jacobs was being used excessively in that article, at that time. However, I would advise looking deeper, and reviewing the subsequent discussions at the talkpage. There appears to have been a legitimate discussion as to whether or not Jacobs was a reliable source. Dark Tea initially presented arguments as to why he was, but then once better educated on Misplaced Pages policies, realized that he was not. At that point, Dark Tea voluntarily acknowledged that Jacobs was an unreliable source, and personally removed all reference to Dr. Jacobs' work. Dark Tea should have perhaps shown better judgment than to add the information in the first place, but once challenged, Dark Tea quickly adapted to the community's wishes, and there have been no further questionable edits to that article by Dark Tea. This seems to me to be Misplaced Pages working normally, as well as what we ''want'' to see in an editor -- a willingness to re-examine their own editing practices and try to improve. I still am not seeing a valid reason to give an ArbCom warning, as I have not yet seen proof that Dark Tea has been editing tendentiously. --]]] 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::This incident is one month old. I think it is too soon to conclude that there will be no further problems, considering the editor's long history, three years worth cited by Moreschi. Notice of the arbitration case ("warning" is an ominous word) to an editor who is active in the area is a good way to make sure they are aware of the conditions and to help prevent problems. It is not my intention to get this editor blocked. Quite the contrary. In any case, they are now on notice and will hopefully comply with relevant policies going forward. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::: Moreschi was clearly out of line, and was abusing administrator tools. If you are going to be warning editors such as Dark Tea for what she ''might'' be doing in the future, perhaps you should also consider speaking to Moreschi about what he ''actually'' did? I know how interested you are in the topic of administrators abusing their access... --]]] 22:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Elonka, it's becoming increasingly clear that you only arrived at this case not because of any interest in the actual case, but only because of your previous interactions with Moreschi. You clearly do not possess any real interest or competency in this actual editing area. If I was you, I'd disengage from this before another RfC is required. ] 23:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::: Actually, no, my interest has nothing to do with Moreschi. I just noticed the ANI thread, and on a spot-check about the block, was concerned that a lengthy block was imposed on an established editor, even though there was no history of warnings. That the block was imposed by an "involved" admin, was secondary. --]]] 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I'm undecided on the matter of Moreschi's block, because I haven't looked at Moreschi's edits. However, I feel that Dark Tea has been editing contrary to policy and should be informed of the arbitration decision. Now that the notice has been given, my job here is done, and I will move on to the next task. With regards to all, especially Dark Tea who has been our gracious host. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: Yes, let's just hope that Dark Tea reads this and modifies their editing on such articles, then none of use would have to do anything. ] 09:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::: What might be most helpful to Dark Tea, would be if other editors could give constructive criticism as to what exactly they would like to see improved. Black Kite, could you perhaps give some specific suggestions? --]]] 18:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::: To be honest, I believe this user knows exactly what they are doing wrong, but to over-extend my good faith, they need to ask "are the opinions that I am inserting into the article widely held by notable authorities on the issue, and are they well sourced, or are they my own opinions sourced by random vague quotations from miscellaneous sources that I found?" ] 22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Hit me up, if...== | |||
Greetings. We haven't had much interaction, but I'm dropping by to offer my assistance. If and when you need it, and if it's righteous, then I'm in. I'm not here often, so you may want to post to my talk page as well as drop me an e-mail. Peace. ] (]) 10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
==AfD nomination of Goldsea Asian American Daily == | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.<!-- Template:Adw --> ] (]) 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== File:Hair color in Europe map.png listed for deletion == | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 05:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Notification of automated file description generation == | |||
Your upload of ] or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page. | |||
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions ]. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 11:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
== File:800px-US Census 2000 race definitions Australia Sudan Afghan.PNG listed for deletion == | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
== European race listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''European race'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 06:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692054221 --> | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
<blockquote>Orphaned map.</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 21:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
<blockquote>Orphaned map.</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 21:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
== European race listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''European race'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 00:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> | |||
<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
<blockquote>'''Unused image, source of "the other map" this is based on is needed.'''</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --] (]) 17:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:02, 6 January 2024
This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Dark Tea has not edited Misplaced Pages since September 11, 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Archives |
Interracial Marriage
Do you know any statistics of marriages between Latinos and other groups? Agtax 07:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- On the internet, there are statistics involving Hispanic exogamy but they incorrectly give Hispanics the distinction of being their own race, comparing their exogamy with other races rather than non-Hispanics. Hispanic is not a race, so I haven't added it to the interracial marriage article and I have been careful to not include interracial statistics which botch their data by including Hispanic as a race.----Tea© 08:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know the statistics of interracial marriages recorded last year and this year? Agtax 08:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have not found them on the internet, but I haven't been looking specifically for 2007 or 2008 statistics.----Tea© 08:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know the statistics of interracial marriages recorded last year and this year? Agtax 08:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
IP range block
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).Dark Tea (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My IP has been affected by a range block intended to target another IP editor, but my account shows that I'm a good editor.
Decline reason:
Clearing an autoblock
Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:
- If you have a Misplaced Pages account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache. - Try to edit the Sandbox.
- If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "" link to the right hand side to show this text.
- Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.
If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. — Sandstein 08:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock-ip|71.107.178.165}}
- Please follow the above instructions exactly, or we cannot unblock you. Sandstein 09:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the "IP blocked?" section?----Tea© 09:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Obsessions with Indians
Why are you obsessed with Indians when you are of Japanese ancestry? You seem to be on a rampage to prove that Indians are not caucasians and wish to lump them in with mongoloids (both in the Asian American article where you insist on including Indians and in the mongoloid article where you insist on including indians). It sounds like you are jealous of the caucasoid features of many Indians and wish to lump them in with mongoloids. Bluescientist (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't respond to personal attacks. They are part of the Asian race, although some people disagree. If you were the IP editor who made the deletion of citations on the Mongoloid article recently, remember to next time log in to Misplaced Pages. Also, remember Misplaced Pages works by citations, not opinions.---Tea© 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Race stuff
Hi, you've done a good job with the articles about the Caucasian race and Mongoloid race, so I was thinking if you could maybe take a look at the Negroid article some day? FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Although I would like to contribute to that article, I'm afraid of being accused of being a racist if I contribute to that article.----Tea© 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, the main problem with that article was that the user User:Muntuwandi "owned" the article, but he has now been blocked indefinitely as a massive sockpuppet-master. Another user with ownage problems in relation to that article, User:Jeeny, has been blocked indefinitely too. I think if anything, you'd make the article even less POV, as you always use citations, contrary to many other people who edit such articles. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- User:Deeceevoice is an African editor who made this edit where they removed a citation about the existence of physical and mental racial differences. I think my citations about physical and mental differences will be removed by this editor.----Tea© 04:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, You made it very clear that it was a controversial view and all that, but it wasn't sourced, which is problematic for controversial material. Deeceevoice seems to be a sane person, contrary to Muntuwandi and Jeeny, so a talk page discussion could probably solve eventual differences, and there probably won't be problems if statements are sourced. I'll throw in my "two cents" if discussion gets heated, as I think I and Deecevoice are on good terms. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- User:Deeceevoice is an African editor who made this edit where they removed a citation about the existence of physical and mental racial differences. I think my citations about physical and mental differences will be removed by this editor.----Tea© 04:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, the main problem with that article was that the user User:Muntuwandi "owned" the article, but he has now been blocked indefinitely as a massive sockpuppet-master. Another user with ownage problems in relation to that article, User:Jeeny, has been blocked indefinitely too. I think if anything, you'd make the article even less POV, as you always use citations, contrary to many other people who edit such articles. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Rachel Milford
There's no "Rachel Milford" - there are Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari, two individuals.
I'm really curious where you are getting your references - in this case it's obviously not from the book itself or a facsimile like Amazon Preview or Google Books, but must be some secondary source where the names were garbled.
It's an excellent book about the multiregional hypothesis - I recommend obtaining the book or reading a facsimile. --JWB (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I remember she had two last names in Google Books. Perhaps one is a maiden name.----Tea© 07:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the Google Books entry for the book that clearly shows the two authors' names. It was the first search result for the title and took a couple of seconds to find. What source are you looking at? --JWB (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I was looking at Google books.----Tea© 23:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Using Talk Page for Sandbox before August 22
My home IP is being affected by a range IP block, targeting a dynamic IP vandal, so I am going to be using this space for collecting citations until August 22. The block ends August 22.----Tea© 07:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Email?
Dark Tea, could you email me? Want to say something privately (not bad, don't worry!). Hope this is allowed. Email from my page, or just send to fiona2211814 at gmail dot com. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiona2211814 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I do not want to talk with Misplaced Pages editors via email.----Tea© 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
I'm blocking you for 3 months, though it really should be indef. As documented at Misplaced Pages:FTN#Caucasian race , you have systematically, over the last 3 years, fouled up an entire topic-area. Our "race" articles are all in a complete mess, and I reckon 70 percent of this to be your fault. Your credulous italicized inclusion of any lengthy quote from anyone, so long as it looks impressive, is simply unacceptable: reverting to re-include such junk is essentially vandalism. Particularly when attached to a distinct "racialist" agenda, as far as I can make out. Moreschi (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock|1=] has chosen to not discuss their differing opinions regarding the content of an article they had a dispute with me about, but instead has misused their administrator powers to block and editor who has disagreed with them. The correct action would have been to discuss their differing opinion on the article's talk page rather than blocking the editor who disagrees with them. ] says that I use quotations from reliable sources to "look impressive", however I have ] that I use quotations from sources to avoid miscontruing their statements. I have almost exclusively been editing the ]/] articles and their related ], ] and ] articles, because I am Asian/Mongoloid in race. These articles were skewed toward a white bias which did not represent a neutral point of view, so I felt compelled to have them reflect an Asian point of view. Similarly, ], a black editor, edited the ] article exclusively because they represented white views but not black views. They were similarly banned when they entered into a content dispute with a white editor who wanted the black people article to represent the white views of the issue. This editor, like myself, did not break any rules. When a normal editor and an editor with administrator priviledges enter into a content dispute, the situation should not end with the editor with administrator priviledges abusing their blocking power.}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Request handled by: Sandstein 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
- Just a comment, this user seems to have been blocked simply for having a POV different from the blocking admin. That's pretty bad. Dark Tea's edits were obviously in good faith, and it seems that the admin has forgotten to assume good faith, since he/she just blocks editors for assuming "racialist agendas". I assume this admin is abusing his/her powers. In fact, Dark Tea edited all race related articles almost equally, simply adding sourced statements to them. Hardly "foul", and in any case, the block was way too premature, since the admin didn't even attempt to discuss the edits with Dark Tea. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I never feel the need to comment on someone being blocked, but I am a little surprised at this one, as it seems to be unwarranted and a possible abuse of administrator powers. I don't do much editing on the Caucasian race article, but I've been following it daily. Just the other day, User:Moreschi started making major deletes and just said on the talk page that he thought it was sh** without much discussion or consensus. It seems to me that User:Dark Tea only reinserted what he felt to be cited material and was automatically blocked without warning? Seems a bit excessive to me. Kman543210 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that my comments are based only on my observation of the Caucasian race article and not any of the other disputes that may have happened on other race-related articles. Kman543210 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Topic ban
After reading your edits to various articles, I have come to the conclusion that your editing on topics related to race is unhelpful to the development of those articles. Since you have previously been warned of such problems, I am enacting a topic ban on you of any article relating to race. This means that you cannot edit any article which is functionally related to that topic. If you do so, you can be blocked from the project by any administrator for a suitable period. Thanks, Black Kite 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Black Kite, by what authority are you issuing this ban? To my knowledge, unless Dark Tea is editing in a ArbCom enforcement area, we can't just issue a vague topic ban on one admin's say-so. --Elonka 02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- See your talkpage. Black Kite 20:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, Dark Tea, please disregard Black Kite's above message. You are not topic-banned at this time. There is still discussion going on at ANI and the Fringe theories noticeboard though. I'm personally not that familiar with this topic area, so I can't tell what the fuss is about. I see people complaining about Dark Tea's edits, but without providing solid diffs that prove a problem. And I see no history of warnings to Dark Tea's talkpage either. --Elonka 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- See your talkpage. Black Kite 20:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
An ANI thread about you
There is an ANI thread about you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of the unblock of Dark Tea. DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya, Dark Tea, since you haven't been online in a couple days, the thread eventually died out and has been archived (ANI gets archived very rapidly). To see what was said, check here. Any comments you may have in reply, should probably be placed here at your talkpage. Thanks, --Elonka 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
September 2008
In the arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience a general sanction was established allowing uninvolved administrators to issue topic bans to editors who fail to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies in the locus of dispute, pseudoscience broadly construed. Please read the case and familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, especially WP:NPOV. Your editing history shows a consistent tendency to give undue weight to fringe ideas, and to promote pseudoscientific ideas. Should these problems continue, you may be subject to the remedies provided by that case. Jehochman 23:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- According to the case, "Pseudoscience" is defined loosely as all articles in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories. Which of those articles has Dark Tea been editing? Which pseudoscientific ideas is it claimed that Dark Tea is promoting? --Elonka 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- A quick look at the user's contribution history will reveal numerous examples of the user adding irrelevant material to Misplaced Pages for the purpose of pushing pseudoscientific ideas. For instance, this recent edit to Greys. Please check the user's contribution history in detail and you will see the pattern. Your help is welcome. If we can inform the user as to the nature of the problem, they perhaps can be guided in a more productive direction. Jehochman 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the diff. I agree that on first glance, it was a questionable edit, and that the name of Dr. Jacobs was being used excessively in that article, at that time. However, I would advise looking deeper, and reviewing the subsequent discussions at the talkpage. There appears to have been a legitimate discussion as to whether or not Jacobs was a reliable source. Dark Tea initially presented arguments as to why he was, but then once better educated on Misplaced Pages policies, realized that he was not. At that point, Dark Tea voluntarily acknowledged that Jacobs was an unreliable source, and personally removed all reference to Dr. Jacobs' work. Dark Tea should have perhaps shown better judgment than to add the information in the first place, but once challenged, Dark Tea quickly adapted to the community's wishes, and there have been no further questionable edits to that article by Dark Tea. This seems to me to be Misplaced Pages working normally, as well as what we want to see in an editor -- a willingness to re-examine their own editing practices and try to improve. I still am not seeing a valid reason to give an ArbCom warning, as I have not yet seen proof that Dark Tea has been editing tendentiously. --Elonka 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- This incident is one month old. I think it is too soon to conclude that there will be no further problems, considering the editor's long history, three years worth cited by Moreschi. Notice of the arbitration case ("warning" is an ominous word) to an editor who is active in the area is a good way to make sure they are aware of the conditions and to help prevent problems. It is not my intention to get this editor blocked. Quite the contrary. In any case, they are now on notice and will hopefully comply with relevant policies going forward. Jehochman 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Moreschi was clearly out of line, and was abusing administrator tools. If you are going to be warning editors such as Dark Tea for what she might be doing in the future, perhaps you should also consider speaking to Moreschi about what he actually did? I know how interested you are in the topic of administrators abusing their access... --Elonka 22:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka, it's becoming increasingly clear that you only arrived at this case not because of any interest in the actual case, but only because of your previous interactions with Moreschi. You clearly do not possess any real interest or competency in this actual editing area. If I was you, I'd disengage from this before another RfC is required. Black Kite 23:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, no, my interest has nothing to do with Moreschi. I just noticed the ANI thread, and on a spot-check about the block, was concerned that a lengthy block was imposed on an established editor, even though there was no history of warnings. That the block was imposed by an "involved" admin, was secondary. --Elonka 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm undecided on the matter of Moreschi's block, because I haven't looked at Moreschi's edits. However, I feel that Dark Tea has been editing contrary to policy and should be informed of the arbitration decision. Now that the notice has been given, my job here is done, and I will move on to the next task. With regards to all, especially Dark Tea who has been our gracious host. Jehochman 02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, let's just hope that Dark Tea reads this and modifies their editing on such articles, then none of use would have to do anything. Black Kite 09:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- What might be most helpful to Dark Tea, would be if other editors could give constructive criticism as to what exactly they would like to see improved. Black Kite, could you perhaps give some specific suggestions? --Elonka 18:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I believe this user knows exactly what they are doing wrong, but to over-extend my good faith, they need to ask "are the opinions that I am inserting into the article widely held by notable authorities on the issue, and are they well sourced, or are they my own opinions sourced by random vague quotations from miscellaneous sources that I found?" Black Kite 22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- What might be most helpful to Dark Tea, would be if other editors could give constructive criticism as to what exactly they would like to see improved. Black Kite, could you perhaps give some specific suggestions? --Elonka 18:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, let's just hope that Dark Tea reads this and modifies their editing on such articles, then none of use would have to do anything. Black Kite 09:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm undecided on the matter of Moreschi's block, because I haven't looked at Moreschi's edits. However, I feel that Dark Tea has been editing contrary to policy and should be informed of the arbitration decision. Now that the notice has been given, my job here is done, and I will move on to the next task. With regards to all, especially Dark Tea who has been our gracious host. Jehochman 02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, no, my interest has nothing to do with Moreschi. I just noticed the ANI thread, and on a spot-check about the block, was concerned that a lengthy block was imposed on an established editor, even though there was no history of warnings. That the block was imposed by an "involved" admin, was secondary. --Elonka 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka, it's becoming increasingly clear that you only arrived at this case not because of any interest in the actual case, but only because of your previous interactions with Moreschi. You clearly do not possess any real interest or competency in this actual editing area. If I was you, I'd disengage from this before another RfC is required. Black Kite 23:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Moreschi was clearly out of line, and was abusing administrator tools. If you are going to be warning editors such as Dark Tea for what she might be doing in the future, perhaps you should also consider speaking to Moreschi about what he actually did? I know how interested you are in the topic of administrators abusing their access... --Elonka 22:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- This incident is one month old. I think it is too soon to conclude that there will be no further problems, considering the editor's long history, three years worth cited by Moreschi. Notice of the arbitration case ("warning" is an ominous word) to an editor who is active in the area is a good way to make sure they are aware of the conditions and to help prevent problems. It is not my intention to get this editor blocked. Quite the contrary. In any case, they are now on notice and will hopefully comply with relevant policies going forward. Jehochman 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the diff. I agree that on first glance, it was a questionable edit, and that the name of Dr. Jacobs was being used excessively in that article, at that time. However, I would advise looking deeper, and reviewing the subsequent discussions at the talkpage. There appears to have been a legitimate discussion as to whether or not Jacobs was a reliable source. Dark Tea initially presented arguments as to why he was, but then once better educated on Misplaced Pages policies, realized that he was not. At that point, Dark Tea voluntarily acknowledged that Jacobs was an unreliable source, and personally removed all reference to Dr. Jacobs' work. Dark Tea should have perhaps shown better judgment than to add the information in the first place, but once challenged, Dark Tea quickly adapted to the community's wishes, and there have been no further questionable edits to that article by Dark Tea. This seems to me to be Misplaced Pages working normally, as well as what we want to see in an editor -- a willingness to re-examine their own editing practices and try to improve. I still am not seeing a valid reason to give an ArbCom warning, as I have not yet seen proof that Dark Tea has been editing tendentiously. --Elonka 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- A quick look at the user's contribution history will reveal numerous examples of the user adding irrelevant material to Misplaced Pages for the purpose of pushing pseudoscientific ideas. For instance, this recent edit to Greys. Please check the user's contribution history in detail and you will see the pattern. Your help is welcome. If we can inform the user as to the nature of the problem, they perhaps can be guided in a more productive direction. Jehochman 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hit me up, if...
Greetings. We haven't had much interaction, but I'm dropping by to offer my assistance. If and when you need it, and if it's righteous, then I'm in. I'm not here often, so you may want to post to my talk page as well as drop me an e-mail. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Goldsea Asian American Daily
An article that you have been involved in editing, Goldsea Asian American Daily , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Goldsea Asian American Daily. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Hair color in Europe map.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hair color in Europe map.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:800px-US Census 2000 race definitions Australia Sudan Afghan.PNG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
File:800px-US Census 2000 race definitions Australia Sudan Afghan.PNG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:800px-US Census 2000 race definitions Australia Sudan Afghan.PNG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Soupforone (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
European race listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect European race. Since you had some involvement with the European race redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Cnilep (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Eye color in Europe map.png
The file File:Eye color in Europe map.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned map.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob13 21:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Hair color in Europe map.png
The file File:Hair color in Europe map.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned map.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob13 21:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
European race listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect European race. Since you had some involvement with the European race redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Kushite World Dr Clyde Winters.PNG
The file File:Kushite World Dr Clyde Winters.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:US Census 2000 race definitions.PNG
The file File:US Census 2000 race definitions.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused image, source of "the other map" this is based on is needed.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)