Jump to content

User talk:Lukas19: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Civility warnings: removal reverted?
Line 90: Line 90:


If it makes you feel better, I will just agree with whatever you want. Then you can fight the real bullies who are acting just like you, but who hold opposite views. Good luck.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, I will just agree with whatever you want. Then you can fight the real bullies who are acting just like you, but who hold opposite views. Good luck.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::A little examination seems to show you do not seem to be able to get along with others very well. You seem to get into pretty nasty fights constantly. You claim everyone is against you and out to get you. You think anyone who disagees with you is stupid or ignorant or being uncivil etc. You make a wide variety of outrageous claims it seems, and then when they are challenged you respond with venom. I suspect these are not good symptoms. I see a pattern here. Do you ? You might be surprised if you knew some of the racial makeups of the people you are disagreeing with so vehemently, and the educational backgrounds and identities of the people you are so sure are stupid and ignorant and inferior in various ways. Why don't you just take a deep breath before you get yourself in more trouble here? Just some friendly advice.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:31, 6 December 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Lukas19, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Addhoc 12:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

warning

On what basis did you issue me a warning? --- Skapur 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea of the difference between a bold edit and vandalism --- Skapur 05:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black people

Hi, we seem to be arguing over really trivial things. All the article is saying is that on the genetic level, Ethiopians are in between blacks and cuacasians, and that caucasians are in between East Asians and Africans. This is all well documented, may simply reflect nothing more than the ancient order in which 1 race mutated into another (i.e. Africans mutated into Ethiopians who then mutated into caucasians who then mutated into East Asians). I'm not sure why you find this so disturbing. Did you think all the race just suddenly appeared all it once? If not, some must be more related to each other than others. What in particular is bothering you? Editingoprah 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopians

I'm glad we achieved compromise on the Blasian issue, however the edits you are making on Ethiopians are simply incorrect. Ethiopians simply can not be lumped in with other sub-Saharan Africans because Ethiopians mutated off of sub-Saharans in the form of elongated Africans (Africans with narrow features). These elongated Africans spread out into the middle East where they mutated into full blown caucasians. Those full blown Caucasians later mixed with Ethiopians, pushing the Ethiopian gene pool even closer to the caucasian race.

Look at the following genetic chart:

File:E88vuo.gif

Note that the Amhara (a major Ethiopian ethnicity) is not part of the sub-Saharan cluster, but instead has been attached to the North/East (caucasoid) branch of the African tree. Editingoprah 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The study you cited did not even include Ethiopians, and you don't even know how they defined sub-Saharan. Why are you trying to intentionally mislead readers when you know that what you are saying is incorrect. Also, check this out:

R. Scacchi et al.

Human Biology 75.2 (2003) 293-300

recent phylogenetic analysis based on classical protein polymorphism (Tartaglia et al. 1996) and Y-chromosome sequence variation (Underhill et al. 2000) showed that Ethiopians appear to be distinct from Africans and more closely associated with populations of the Mediterranean basin. Editingoprah 19:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The study you cite is talking about where peoples ancestors lived, but genetic studies show that a substantial fraction of Ethiopian ancestors are from the middle east. Calling them a sub-Saharan group because they live in sub-Sahara today makes no sense because much of their ancestry is not indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. Also check out this genetic chart which proves yet again that Ethiopians do not cluster with sub-Saharan Africans:

File:Chart3.gif Editingoprah 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chart3.gif

Hello Lukas19

Hello again Thulean/Lukas19. I was on a wikibreak for the last 4 days, but I noticed no one had yet posted on the mediation page. You tell me, what has happened that I should know. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to break the impression of many people that the original humans were black when they were nothing of the sort, Ethiopes of course are not true blacks and the deniers know this secretly but won't admit to it. Cheers.--LaBotadeFranco 15:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to say I admire your work, if you ever need "reinforcements", you can know who to call.Regards--LaBotadeFranco 03:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The History and Geography of Human Genes

As far as I can tell this was the source of the citation to The History and Geography of Human Genes, p. 82 that is under discussion at Talk:Black people#Gallery. Please provide a direct quote from that source to support "According to DNA of the world's populations cluster by Cavalli-Sforza, Blasians may be genetically distant to Blacks as much as Whites are." It would also be useful if there were a citation in The History and Geography of Human Genes to a peer-reviewed publication that also supports this claim. --JWSchmidt 04:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

It is not uncivil just because I disagree with you. Please stop abusing wikipedia "warn" notices. I will take this further if you are not prepared to comply with wikipedia rules. You are POV pushing and distorting scientific research to promote naive and spurious "racialist" ideas. Please do not do this. Often the sources you cite do not support the edits you have made, it is only a specific interpretation that supports your edits, specifically your interpretation, this is either original research or a deliberate attempt to undermine the article. You are turning wikiedia into a joke . I am currently assuming good faith because you have not displayed the overt racism of some of the people who "admire" your work, such as User:Albinomite who I notice has had an indefinite block. Please see WP:SPADE. I hope you do "report" me, it will show categorically that you are just trying to use wikipedia rules about civility to introduce POV into articles. If you cannot take criticism then I suggest that this is not the place for you. You will always be challenged here, if you think that someone merely pointing out that you happen to be wrong and a POV pusher is a "personal attack" then you do not understand wikipedia at all. Alun 06:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas19 attacked me also without any reason to push his POV ideas --- Skapur 12:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let Wobble intimidate you, he himself said he's never reported anyone and never will, doesn't have the cojones if you know what I mean.--Cupidon 07:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are distorting scientific research to promote your racialist POV pushing. I refer you to your edit of English people, which was clearly an attempt to undermine the article, was clearly an attempt to push a distorted interpretation of science, and was not supported by the research. Citing sources is important, claiming sources support a POV that they don't, or claiming that a source states something that it doesn't is a brach of all three rules WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. These are policies, I merely stated that in doing this you are pushing a POV and that you were wrong. I do not think you can dispute this, it is in the edit history. If you are claiming that my post was a personal attack then I can only assume that you are attempting to intimidate me by claiming that if I disagree with you I must be "punished" or something. Well I'm not intimidated by this. It is a matter of your edit history that you have used spurious "warns" against people in the past. Unless my memory is faulty you have accused good faith editors of vandalism, when it is clear that they have not engaged in vandalism, and you have accused people of personal attacks before just because they happen to disagree with you. I'm unconcerned about this, you will almost certainly leave wikipedia long before I do. I have seen POV pushers come and go, they always go in the end because it is clearly difficult to push a single POV when it is so obviously against wikipedia policies. All the best. Alun 14:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lukas, I agree with Cupidon. Don't let this guy intimidate you. He seem to believe that he cannot do anything wrong and seems to feel that he can attack other editors and simply deny that he was being uncivil and somehow that makes it so. The best way to handle this guy is to point out that he was in violation of policy, let him retort, then end the convo. Otherwise, you'll just get long-winded repetitions of the same exact argument reworded on your talk page. Do keep in mind, however, that there is a difference between bold edits and vandalism. In your case though, he did clearly make a personal attack. --Strothra 16:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no attacks. If you think I have then feel free to take it further. I will stand by my comments and edits, and I will defend myself. I will take any blocks or whatever any admin decides I deserve. But the way I see it I am simply calling a calling a spade a spade. I note that Strothra has used spurious "warns" against me and other users, and accused me of a personal attack spuriously as well.User_talk:Strothra/Archive_4#Warnings. Alun 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thulean/Lucas I have responded to you on my talk page. I wanted to take your points one by one, and instead of pasting them here I have simply replied there. Hope this is OK. Alun 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch my talk page for a while I will respond there, just to keep everything together. Is this OK? Alun 19:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hello again Lukas. I've been checking the mediation, but it seems to me that many problems have been solved, and probably new ones are now in their place. Could you tell me of the new issues in place? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll ask the others to update too, if they feel it necessary. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 20:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warnings

After reviewing the pages and comments referenced in your civility warnings to User:Filll, I have removed the warnings from his talkpage. While the word "rascist" is troubling to many people, the comment itself was not incivil; nor is there any reasonable doubt that there are displays of rascism in the article and associated talkpage. I wanted to let you know what I've done and why, to avoid any possible misunderstandings. Thanks! Doc Tropics 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin, I support this move. I make this post in repsonse to comments located at User_talk:Doc_Tropics#Civility_warnings. Lukas19, if you feel an administrator's attention is needed for something, please post on WP:AN/I or on an adiministrator's talk page. Take personal attack problems to WP:PAIN. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the removal seems to have been reverted by Lukas19 --- Skapur 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil

So I am racist? How? We have had both blacks and whites on the page talking about racial purity of their groups. I think that is heading into racist territory myself and I will point it out when I see it. When you make comments about how impure racially Americans are compared to Europeans, you are starting to step into that territory as well. Just try it out with others and see if they do not agree with me.

I said people were difficult? Where? I was not able to find the quote, and I was called stupid. I was called ignorant and stupid over and over. You want me to continue?

I might very well be stupid and ignorant. That is not polite of you to call me that, or imply that I am stupid and ignorant. If I am mentally disabled, you are acting in a very discriminatory manner towards someone that is disabled. I have been called stupid and ignorant by far better than you, and it does not bother me. If it makes you feel better, call me stupid and ignorant all you want. Call everyone stupid and ignorant. I hope it helps you. But somehow I doubt that you have too many masters degrees or PhDs yet, so if you want to go down this road, I think you might have egg on your face. But be my guest. Go ahead. I dare you.

Look, you have found some good material. But you are acting like a bully, frankly. How do you think you will do if you want to fight with the other bullies? The falangists and the black supremacists and the black pride people? I am not your enemy. I am only trying to include all viewpoints, contrary to some like yourself who seem to be trying to stomp out all resistance so they can write the article the way they want.

If it makes you feel better, I will just agree with whatever you want. Then you can fight the real bullies who are acting just like you, but who hold opposite views. Good luck.--Filll 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little examination seems to show you do not seem to be able to get along with others very well. You seem to get into pretty nasty fights constantly. You claim everyone is against you and out to get you. You think anyone who disagees with you is stupid or ignorant or being uncivil etc. You make a wide variety of outrageous claims it seems, and then when they are challenged you respond with venom. I suspect these are not good symptoms. I see a pattern here. Do you ? You might be surprised if you knew some of the racial makeups of the people you are disagreeing with so vehemently, and the educational backgrounds and identities of the people you are so sure are stupid and ignorant and inferior in various ways. Why don't you just take a deep breath before you get yourself in more trouble here? Just some friendly advice.--Filll 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]