User talk:Wobble

Archives

Apr 2004 - Oct 2006

Oct 2006 - Nov 2006

Remember: "Assume good faith" is a nicer restatement of "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice."

I must inform you you have no right to manipulate my discussion page. Are you insane? Do not obligate me to report you. You have been noticed.--LaBotadeFranco 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not "manipulated" anything. I have translated some French and Spanish into English. This is English Wikipedia. I might just as well accuse you of "manipulating" my talk page when you leave a message.

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Template:Test4 (Fourth level warning) Balino-Antimod

Please do not leave spurious "warns". This was not vandalism. I will report you for this the next time. Alun 05:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's funny coming from a new user whose first action in Wikipedia was to post insulting coments in my own talk page [1]. Sugaar

It seems to me that certain homogenous group of new users are coming with two things very well learned: where to find the warning templates and where to do their first vandalizing act (i.e. my user talk). Posting undue warnings may be a violation of Wikipedia policies.

Aditionally, Bota, you should post primarily in English: this is the English language Wikipedia and therefore English is the main (if not the only) language to be used. Sugaar

Also translating posts in other languages is not an act of vandalism but a community service.

Finally your user page (and specially your talk page) does not belong to you but to Wikipedia, which is not a free host provider of personal pages. --Sugaar

Self-correction: the poster of the warning template was User:Balino-Antimod, not La Bota. It anyhow only aggravates things because Wobble has taken no action in this user's pages at all, so it is a gratuitous warning that should be removed and reported. -- Sugaar

The warning can stay as far as I'm concerned, it has no relevance, it is illegitimate and carries no effective force. It is evidence of a series of attempts at intimidation of good faith users by calling them "vandals". Anyone can see that what I did was not vandalism. They damage themselves more than me by posting these "warns". Alun 06:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I call for a truce (una tregua).

I think just about every actor here has in some way been at fault. We may not agree politically and we each clearly have our own trusted group of collaborators, but that should not in itself be reason for us not to be able to work together or at least along-side each other during the coarse of our overlapping time here. Wobble, you clearly do not understand (let alone appreciate) the New Falanges s purpose and positions, I think if you were to read some of their writings you would find yourself pleasantly surprised, they are not your grandfather s fascistas; also, technically you are right in claiming the privilege to translate text from another user s talkpage, but it would surely have been more courteous of you (and in no way onerous) if you had also taken the time to make the immediate effort to explain yourself, the comment no pasarán was entirely uncalled far (it was blatently aggressive). Baliño, I think you should frankly make yourself scarce for a while. To Sugaar I have nothing to say.Albinomite 06:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• technically you are right claiming the privilege to translate text

No, not "technically". I have this right. Just as you have the right to post here. There is no way to leave "secret" messages here, we are all responsible for our own contributions and edits. I do not hide behind Welsh when I want to talk to other Welsh users. This is English wikipedia, we post in English, it's common courtesy. Alun 06:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The no pasarán was not a personal attack, nor was it any sort of insult. I was defending myself from another user who had accused me of "vandalism" implying that I am "insane". Please ask an administrator to investigate, I'd be happy to cooperate as I've done nothing wrong. Alun 06:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am only interested in producing ballanced articles. I want all articles to reflect WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. I also think we need to use WP:RS. I have not been involved in these "race" articles untill recently, they are not my primary interest here, but I feel I have been drawn into them because there are so many POV pushers on these articles, these pov pushers especially distort their sources (by claiming they say things they do not) and also try to include non-reliable sources. I am not interested in anthropology, I know a bit about molecular biology and genetics, so these are the areas I tend to cover. To produce a neutral point of view we need to say that some peoplebelieve that race is a biological phenomenon, and that others do not. It is incorrect to claim that every scientist believes that "race" is a biological phenomenon. I am happy to include all points of view, but it seems that some editors do not want to include the point of view that they disagree with. This is a breach of the NPOV policy. I see no merit in namecalling or in fighting over who is "right" or "wrong". There are just different "points of view". So we include all points of view, and we cite them from reliable sources. It's simple. Alun 06:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you had some recent vandalism trouble, isn't that just too bad.--Albinomite 18:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of my user page doesn't bother me. Why should it? I don't know how people can be bothered about it, it just get's revereted anyway. I reverted some edits to some Scottish football pages that were really badly written, and the person who made the original edits took exception. I don't know anything about Scottish football, but I do know about poor edits and neutrality and encyclopaedic standards. [2][3] [4][5] As I say vandalism to user pages is futile (and impotent), it achieves nothing and usually gets reverted quite quickly. It takes more time to do the vandalism than to revert it, especially with popups. The vandalism made me laugh out loud, it's quite funny. Like this made me laugh as well.[6] Alun 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what is going on here. Who are these "fascistas" and why do they need a truce? what does that last comment mean? --Filll 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what to do with "fascistas" or what is that they want. I do think that it needs attention. I am not sure what exactly however. It might be good to report it if you know how.--Filll 20:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am leaning towards just ignoring the "fascistas". I think they must be just some kids playing around. And as you say, they cannot make any headway at all because they will just reverted. If they fight too much, they will just get banned. --Filll 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You clearly missed the entire point of his comment "friend." He said he was 5 10 but his mother only 5 2, but that's exactly it we're talking about a woman, more interesting would be to know his mother's father's height. You see demons where there are none, I suggest you see therapist for your "fascist" ghost delusions.--LaBotadeFranco 05:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Alun 05:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You have recently vandalized a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

We hope that you will become a legitimate editor. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaBotadeFranco (talk • contribs)

I am disregarding this "warn" because it is spurious and does not constitute any relevancy to "vandalism". Alun 06:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Friend I strongly suggest you not associate with sugaar he's a known Basque Ultra-Nationalist and hence ETA sympathizer. This rat is cornered.--Magencio 11:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how he can be a "Nationalist" and an Anarchist, these things are opposite. I will leave messages where I see fit, and associate with whoever I want to. Personally I disapprove of violence as a way to gain political change, but I can accept that some people see violence as a legitimate political option. If Sugaar believes that Basque people have the right to self determination then it is his prerogative, and I would generally agree that this is true for all Stateless nations. In fact violence is more associated with falangists and fascists than with libertarians. How many people did Franco, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Hitler and Stalin (also a fascist in my opinion) illegally torture and murder? Fascists and falangists traditionally use indiscriminate violence in order to maintain fear in a population they seek to dominate, this is why dictatorial regimes all have their lists of the "missing". Some terrorist organisations use similar tactics, such as the 9/11 bombers. Traditional European terrorists like ETA and the IRA are generally more descriminate and have not used indiscriminate mass murder, but have generally attacked what they see as "legitimate targets". I don't agree with either form of murder, but I can differentiate between indiscriminate mass murder and the use of violence against specific targets. Alun 11:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Give up, you will not be able to hold the fort all by yourself, plus the others will soon be arriving.--Albinomite 13:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Alun 13:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This makes no sense. What do the regional aspirations of groups in Spain have to do with black people?--Filll 13:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you being hard headed and reverting my edits, you've had your fun, but the article as it is stinks worse than spoiled cabbage. Why do you insist?--Albinomite 13:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Blasian

I think explaining everthing in terms of cross-mating between caucasians and Africans on the one hand and caucasians and Orientals on the other, is a bit simplistic, and perhaps a bit too much information. If you don't mind I took the liberty of suddenly adding to the caption that genetic varaition is gradual (as opposed to discrete categories) and that Sforza himself does not believe in race, so that the gist of what you're saying is represented, withot trying to go into too much unneeded detail. Timelist 20:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I reverted your latest edits. The whole point of the gallery is to illustrate the definitions with specific examples and you're deleting almost everything useful such as references to specific definitions. First you were offended by any talk of genetics, and now you're even offended by basic dictionary and census definitions. Why don't you just nominate the whole aticle for deletion? Timelist 07:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your friend Sugaar has been misbehaving again, please keep him in line, he's becoming rabid.--Balino-Antimod 07:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be having a cultural difference. In North America it's considered extremely offensive and racist to call an Australian aboriginal or any other non-African black, so we can't take the attitude that everyone in the gallary is black. The term black has special meaning to people of African descent and it's very offensive to people of African descent to see the term black used to describe others. Thus, in order to be NPOV, all we can say is person X is black by this definition but not by that definition. Timelist 08:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who is favoring one definition over another by making statements like "this is an exclusive concept and would exclude many Black people of non recent African ancestry." The very fact that you are calling people with non-recent African ancestry black is favoring the broader definition. Hence in order for the article to be NPOV, we can't call ANYONE black or not black, all we can do is report how they are classified by various definitions. Timelist 08:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

To claim that the Africocentric POV is just a POV is neutral, to claim that this is an exclusive concept and would exclude many Black people of non recent African ancestry is true,

It's not POV to say that the concept excludes people, however it IS POV to say that the people being excluded are black. Because there's no agreed upon definition of who is black, the article itself should never refer to anyone as black or not black, yet you did this repeatedly. Now had you wrote, this is an exclusive concept and would exclude many dark skinned people of non recent African ancestry or this is an exclusive concept and would exclude many people who are considered black in certain countries, that would be NPOV because then you are not making the POV assertion that the people in question are in fact black. I also don't care for the tone of the statement because calling one definition of black exclusive is true, but has a negative connotaion, as if there is something wrong with black being defined that way. Now I understand your concern that the exclusive definition of black seems over emphasized, but this is simply because virtually all the cited definitions of black people emphasize African ancestry. Even the definition you provided on the talk page which I recently added to the article emphasized African ancestry. The article is little more than a collection of definitions of a social construct and the purpose of the gallary is simply to illustrate the aplications of those cited definitions. The article has a North American bias only to the extent that North Americans are in a position of influence, so most of the cited sources people can find are by North Americans, since North Americans tend to dominate the web and other forms of communciation. Perhaps Australian aboriginals would have a very different definition of what it means to be black, but unless they publish it in some notable accessible forum, an encyclopedia the depends on reliable sources can't cite it. That may not be fair, but that's wikipedia. Timelist 11:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on Talk:Black_people#Examining_Alun.27s_comment. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Lukas19 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)