User talk:Psychohistorian

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Psychohistorian! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I had enough. you win

I had enough. You win. You have these article all to yourself. I will no longer waste my time in editing an article in these conditions. All these articles are off my watch list. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Paleoconservatism: Amount of Citation Requests

There is an absolutely ridiculous amount of requests for citations in the "Intellectual precursors and modern expositors" sections. I mean, does anyone really doubt that Mel Bradford is connected to paleoconservatism? Plastering the article with citation requests like this is a really irritating and lazy approach, in my view. I should remove them all and request that if anyone has a problem with what has been written, that they raise the issues here on a case by case basis. Maybe someone has gone on the rampage trying to make a point. -Yakuman 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)(language borrowed from the talk section in the Peter Hitchens article).

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -Will Beback 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC) "That's your opinion. My opinion is that posting unsourced content is lazy. "

Dozens of instances of requests in a single paragraph is just nuts. As to Wikipedia policy, well, truth is a defense. Is there really any doubt that Mel Bradford influenced paleoconservatism? --Yakuman

AMA request

Well over a week ago, now, I pointed out that a rather large number of claims made in the Paleoconservative article were unsourced. I stated at the time that I would wait a week and then remove the unsourced claims.

A week passed. In that time, some sources were provided but many of them didn't actually support what they were being used to support. One user, User_talk:Yakuman, removed the tags saying only that he didn't need to provide sources. I readded them and copied and pasted the relevant Wiki policies from WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. He removed the tags again. I readded them. He removed the tags and put, in some sections where he removed the tags, a

tag. I put additional

tags in the rest of the sections where he had removed tags. He removed the

tags I had added. I readded them. This was quickly going nowhere and, having found myself in an edit war, I wanted to find an alternative approach to making the article policy compliant, so I asked if he'd like to get some mediation on the issue. He said yes. I made a request to the mediation cabal. User_talk:Yakuman's wrote a post there stating his side. I made a post there clarifying my position. User_talk:Yakuman's next post there was to the effect that he had no faith in the mediation cabal. The entire discussion there is here. User_talk:Cowman109 answered the request for mediation anyway. He made a couple of posts in the talk page for Paleoconservatism requesting me to point out the unsourced claims and reiterating the policy regarding claims needing to be sourced. I replied to the effect that the best way to do that was to readd the tags to the article and that, to keep things from getting overwhelming, we should hit one section at a time. So, I readded the tags to the first section. User_talk:Yakuman added sources. I reviewed those sources. They did not support the claims they were being used to support. User_talk:Cowman109 also reviewed the sources and came to the same conclusion. User_talk:Yakuman posted in the article's talk page that he had no faith in the mediation cabal. User_talk:Cowman109 tried to point out to him that he, Cowman109, didn't know Yakuman and, so, had no reason to be biased against him. The end result, however, was that Cowman109 has dropped out of the article's mediation process. Looking for an alternative mediation process, I went to the list of admins and found one. This was User_talk:Voice of All. I posted to his discussion page asking for assistance. Yakuman posted in Voice of All's discussion page behind me explaining his position. Voice of All, however, seems to be quite busy as he hasn't had the time to respond to the issue. User_talk:Yakuman has also taken it upon himself to scroll through my list of contributions so that he might attack me in other article talk pages (such as Affirmative Action in the United States which he then removed). One of the last things Cowman 109 did was point me here for help in addressing this issue, so I'm bringing the whole thing here.

-Psychohistorian 12:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you will find a step by step methodology for resolving disputes here -- Lost^(talk) 12:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Village Pump advised me to create an Rfc. I created an RfC and the response was that sources did need to be added. However, instead of providing them, Yakuman has removed my tags once more and continues making personal attacks against me.

Hello. I'm Aeon from teh AMA. I will try to help. The first thing I want to know about is the Personal Attacks made agaist you please link me ot the various Pages that have this on it. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The talk page for Paleoconservative is the big one. I also believe that his recent addition of a tag in Anchor baby following my addition of a wikilink and his edit to the Talk:Affirmative Action in the United States article [here] were similarly motivated with an end towards harassing me (I will point out that he edited this particular comment to remove it after making it).

The talk page for the admin Voice of all includes an additional accusation. -Psychohistorian 23:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article talk page. There was a lot of back a forth there. I'm my opinion you came borderline to violating WP:CIVIL (I don't think you crossed the line but came close). I do feel that Yakuman has mildly violated WP:CIVIL in those remarks he has made. I will check out VOA's page and I will also ask Cowman a few questions to see how he felt (from a mediator standpoint) things went. The Difs of Personal Attacks and Incivility that would help me a great deal.

Oh and when linking pages, If it is a user User: needs to be in there to like linking to my page you would put User:Aeon1006 Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I have checked VOA's Page and Yakuman has made a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. I will caution him not to doso again. If he does it again tell me and I will report it to the SYSOPs. Also he is starting to get close to violating WP:STALK. If he keeps flowing you around tell me. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 23:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I am getting the difs you requested all together. We have the article's unsourced claims to deal with as well. -Psychohistorian 23:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok but I recomend settling the personal dispute you are in first (prolonged conflict drags down articles). Once I have the difs we can see what type of DR step is needed for this. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've only gone back to when Cowman posted the following quote Cowman posted on 18:34, 28 August 2006 "..remembebr to focus on content, not on the contributor. ." I've also included those of my own quotes which might be seen as attacks and there is an anon whose comments I also included.

• Yakuman posted on 22:11, 28 August 2006 "..someone who seems obsessed.." [[1]]

• Yakuman 23:42, 28 August 2006 "Why did you pick this article for a pedantic rampage? I submit that your challenges are not serious" [[2]]

• Yakuman 22:41, 29 August 2006 "You're not seeking verification. You're obsessed." [[3]]

• Yakuman 22:56, 29 August 2006 "I oppose your proposed changes because all your content will be unsourced, therefore I have every right to start deleting. Ha! " [[4]] (note that this is in another article that he followed me to)

• Yakuman 23:16, 29 August 2006 "..except for cites and making Psycho behave,.." [[5]]

• anon (74.134.153.56) 31 August 2006 "..your overaggressive requests for citations.." [[6]]

• Yakuman 04:47 31 August 2006 "I submit that Psychohistorian does not have legitimate concerns." [[7]]

• Psychohistorian 14:40 31 August 2006 ""Why are you distracting those who do have an interest" (I'm quoting the anon editor here) - am I distracting you by working on making the article verifiable and policy compliant? If thats the case, then I question what your goals are here" [[8]]

• anon (69.128.111.134) 16:12, 31 August 2006 "It would seem, then, that you are not assuming good faith and are, therefore, in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps it's time that an administrator step in here." [[9]]

• Yakuman 19:20, 31 August 2006 "Psycho wants countless citations," [[10]]

• edit comment for Paleoconservatism article dated 23:28 28 August 2006 by Yakuman, "One banner is enough, monomaniac"

Ok as a whole that is a violation on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Also WP:AGF comes to mind as well. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is mostly a conduct conflict.

OK the DR steps you have done so far are MEDCAB and Article RfC correct? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

MEDCAB, RfC, and I've tried to bring in a third party admin (Voice of All). You mentioned WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and borderline violation of WP:STALK (on which there are three seperate instances which need to looked at - user:Voice of All and Affirmative action in the United States as well as his recent action in Anchor baby). This is a pattern of harassment. BUT, I still want the Paleoconservative article to comply with policy. This isn't just about user conduct. -Psychohistorian 09:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is understandalbe but he is the only user that is in dispute with you. Handle the disput and you can help get the article back up to speed with out problems. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello do you still need AMA services? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave this alone for now. I'm really just drained out on Wikipedia. But when I'm ready to come back, if the problem comes back, we can address it then - if it continues. Thank you for the time you've spent with me on this issue, knowing that someone is there to help has helped me keep my sanity. -Psychohistorian 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

inquiry about 198.97.67.59

Do you know if all the edits from that IP address have been yours? JoshuaZ 01:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They have not. That IP is shared. Why? -Psychohistorian 01:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There was some concern about the nature of some of the IP's edits, some of which were POV to the point of constituting vandalism. Thanks for clearing that up. JoshuaZ 16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can tell me which edits you are talking about, I can tell you if I wrote them.-Psychohistorian 11:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Irreducible complexity

May I urge you to greater patience? You are proposing what some clearly see as a significant change to the article. This article has been highly controversial in the past. Significant changes deserve significant discussion. You clearly believe that you are in the right. I've watched Felonious's edits over time and believe that he is equally convinced. Take the time to explain your case and then give him the chance to respond. Please remember that few people can afford to watch Wikipedia for hours every day. They must squeeze in their volunteer hours between regular jobs, family commitments, etc. I've read your point and am studying it. It will likely take me several days to do the necessary research. Others deserve the same chance to respond.

This article has been stable for months. The encyclopedia won't suffer greatly if we take a few days or even weeks to make sure that we get it right. Give the rest of the community a chance to comment. If no one responds in a week, then it is generally considered acceptable to be bold. But a threat to take unilateral action in 24 hours is faster than most of us can support. Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen far too many times when "taking time for discussion" or "doing an RfC" becomes an excuse for leaving the content as is because noone responds to the discussion or the RfC. I have no intention of having that happen on an article which is so obviously in error. If you want me to wait indefinitely, the best way is to revert the content to the way it was before the reversions and wait for comment. That's what I tried to do, but you wouldn't have any of it. -Psychohistorian 18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

By long tradition on Wikipedia, when there is a good-faith dispute over a significant change to an article, the default state of the article is almost always the version that pre-dated the dispute. To do otherwise would have serious adverse consequences on our ability to fend off those edit wars which are initiated by partisans and others who do not share the goals of the encyclopedia. I believe your comments to be in good faith but we have to hold to a consistent precedent.

By the way, it would help a great deal if you could reference a published analysis making the distinction that you are describing. Without some independent reference from a reliable source, there is always a concern that we are including prohibited original research. With a reference, I suspect that your change would be quickly verified and accepted. Rossami (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I (or anyone else here) does yet understand the distinction which you are trying to make. But if I'm guessing correctly then the citation that we need is one verifiably showing that the phrase "irreducible complexity" is in fact used in any context other than that defined by Behe. And more specifically, it should show that such use of the term predated Behe's use. Rossami (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Illegal Immigration

Can you explain how using "immigrant" is non-neutral? [11] As I understand the words, 'immigrant' and 'alien' have identical meaning, except for 'alien' generally connoting someone who is unwelcome, and 'immigrant' just meaning one who immigrates. I was thinking of copy-editing the article, but I am hesitant of making edits which might be reverted. Rintrah 11:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied in your talk page.-Psychohistorian 11:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the explanation. Rintrah 11:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Illegal immigration

You mean m:The Wrong Version? -- Steel 17:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am acting within policy. I don't give a monkey's toss what reversion started the war. -- Steel 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my apology for snapping at you. I was in the heat of the moment and out of line.-Psychohistorian 18:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC

you may want to check out this RFC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenia

3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Will Beback 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You've violated the 3RR on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(immigration). Please revert your last edit or you may be blocked. -Will Beback 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing your last revert. Please read the 3RR policy before accusing me of violating it. -Will Beback 17:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We can let an uninvolved administrator sort it out: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Psychohistorian reported by User:Will Beback (Result:) -Will Beback 18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Race-based articles

Ok, we get it. You don't think race exists. I also agree that race is a largely artificial concept based on social and political constructs. However articles such as Caucasoid race are supposed to document previously-used concepts. The word Caucasoid was invented by people in academia, not by random people on the street. The fact that the concept has been proven false doesn't change the fact that it used to be a commonly accepted term within academia. There's already a sentence explaining the AAA position about race. There's no reason to repeat it twice with different wording. Spylab 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple paragraphs in the White people article shouldn't be there. There is already an article about genetic views on race. Your addition to the White people article, Pschohistorian, about how race isn't genetically based is a tangent. It takes up a large part of the article and isn't directly related to defining whites.--Dark Tichondrias 10:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

+Whether or not I believe race exists is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what the mainstream authorities on anthropology have to say about the issue. I am all for the article exploring the historical development of the term. I want the article to explore how the term has been used and has changed over time. But you are mistaken if you think that early anthropologists weren't all 'armchair anthropologists'. Extensive rigorous field work didn't start happening until Malinowski. -Psychohistorian 18:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing with that. My point is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to fit a certain format. First you succinctly define the topic, expand on that definition, and then explore the criticisms, exceptions and variations after that. There also should not be repetition of similar statements using different wording. If a sentence or paragraph is written properly, the point will get across clearly the first time. Spylab 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to votespam here but you might be interested in this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_african_type as it is the most contentious debate on race articles I've seen yet. Cheers. L0b0t 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Prognathism

Hello Psychohistorian, I see that you are interested in race-related articles and also contributed to the article about Craniofacial Anthropology. I would appreciate it if you could have a look at the content dispute @Prognathism. Thanks in advance. CoYep 16:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, I'm going to be mediating your case. However, I'm a bit confused, did you mean White People, as you said at the Mediation Cabal, or White people, as I had understood. Please be aware that I am only a new mediatior, and this is my first case. | AndonicO Talk 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'll start reading the article later today. Please read WP:NPOV. It would help for the mediation. | AndonicO Talk 12:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, please add White people to your watchlist, if it isn't already. | AndonicO Talk 13:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Psychohistorian. I just wanted to tell you that I have created the subpage where the mediation will take place. You may see it on the discussion page of the article White people, in my message. Please sign on the "Participants" section whenever you are ready. | AndonicO Talk 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Can you provide a link to 3rr rule? Thulean 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

White people article dispute

Thulean has initiated and RFI against me. You may want to comment on it. --Sugaar 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Thulean has also initiated an WP:PAIN against LSLM. Thulean has been reported for complex vandalism WP:RFI. You may want to drop by and say what you have to say or provide evidence. --Sugaar 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling for multiple parti complaint against Thulean for provacative vandilisations White people article--Euskata 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Read NPOV

Hello again Psychohistorian. Please read WP:NPOV so the mediation can begin. Please do this quickly, as the protection will probably not be lifted until this is over. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack

With regards to your comments on Talk:White_people#General_Comments: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Thulean 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:White_people#General_Comments, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Thulean 23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read all what Psychohistorian said there and there's not a single phrase that could constitute personal attack. Instead posting unjustified warnings, wikilawyering, etc. can constitute harassment and break several WP policies.

Also Psychohistorian has the right to remove these "warnings" as long as he's read them. He can do so even with legit warnings, which these are not. --Sugaar 13:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Due to your continued personal attacks, you've been reported [12]

Thulean 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)