User talk:Dark Tea: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:09, 26 August 2008

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Interracial Marriage

Do you know any statistics of marriages between Latinos and other groups? Agtax 07:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.----^DarkTea© 08:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the statistics of interracial marriages recorded last year and this year? Agtax 08:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found them on the internet, but I haven't been looking specifically for 2007 or 2008 statistics.----^DarkTea© 08:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 "[show]" 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)[reply]

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.

Please follow the above instructions exactly, or we cannot unblock you. Sandstein 09:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "IP blocked?" section?----^DarkTea© 09:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. Also, remember Wikipedia works by citations, not opinions.---^DarkTea© 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.----^DarkTea© 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.----^DarkTea© 04:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1] 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)[reply]

I remember she had two last names in Google Books. Perhaps one is a maiden name.----^DarkTea© 07:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.----^DarkTea© 07:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greys

[2]-- Expert Steven Roberts outlines known Grey technologies and the Grey pact with the US government.

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 ===[[David Michael Jacobs]]===
 *[http://www.scribd.com/doc/2155074/The-Threat-Revealing-The-Secret-Alien-Agenda-David-Jacobs ]--Dr. Jacobs' full text of his third book made able to read.
-====Reliance on evidence====
-*"''I had to follow the evidence.  I had begun to understand that if abductions were actually happening...''"(page 6)
-*"''I thought that we would never have the answers to the fundamental questions of alien motivations and intentions.  All that has changed now.  In the past ten years, I have gathered information that I feel certain answers these questions satisfactorily.''"(page 8)**
-====Consistency in abduction cases====
-*"''By 1980, most of the abduction accounts were beginning to display patterns of similarity: paralysis, physical examinations, telepathy, amnesia, and little gray beings with large black eyes''"(page 6)
-"''For example, in over 700 abduction investigations I have conducted using hypnosis, I have been told of egg-taking procedures almost 150 times, physical examinations about 400 times, Mindscan (staring) procedures about 375 times, and baby and toddler contact 180 times.  Some experiences I have heard only occasionally.  If I hear anything only once, and I am not yet certain of the thoroughness and veracity of the person who is telling it to me, I withhold a conclusion pending confirmation from other abductees.''"(page 10)
-====Discrimination of true memories====
-"''This experience taught me an invaluable lesson because I realized that, in all sincerity and honesty, abductees might sometimes remember things that were not true.  I resolved to work out a strict methodology to ensure vigilance about false memories.  As my research progressed and an abductee reported something I had never heard before, I would wait for confirmation by another abductee unaware of the testimony.''"(page 17)
-====False memories criticism====
-"''Loftus and Nash [both psychologists], along with other critics, are incorrect.  Neither they nor any other critics have ever presented evidence that abduction accounts are the products of false memory syndrome... The reason they have not presented this evidence is that they do not understand the abduction phenomenon.  If they did, they would realize that abduction accounts differ from false memory syndrome in five significant areas. In contrast to victims of false memory syndrome, abductees do not recount only childhood experiences... abductees have indirect corroboration of events... abductees often remember events without the aid of a therapist... abductees are physically missing during the event... [and] abductees can provide independent confirmation of the abduction.''"(page 20, 21)
-====Ordinary sexual abuse criticism====
-"''therapists assumed that abduction accounts were due to repressed memories of sexual abuse in childhood.  They postulated that because the abuse was so traumatic, the victim unconsciously transposed the abuse into an abduction account.  There is no evidence for this explanation... There is a great deal of evidence that people "remember" being sexually abused when in reality they were victimized by the abduction phenomenon.''"(page 21)
-=====Lack of media contamination=====
-"''When abductees tell me what they remember, their accounts usually have a richness of detail that could not have come from media contamination.  The mass media disseminate very little solid information about abductions. That abductees remember and describe specific aspects of procedures-- details that scores of abductees have described but that have never been published-- is extraordinary and strongly militates against cultural influences.''"(page 23)
 =====