User talk:Multivariable

Insert non-formatted text here

MRT stations

Just wanted to say "nice work" on updating the TRTS articles and adding more detail. Keep it up!

Taiwantaffy (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'll have to say thanks to you for creating many of the articles in the first place. :P -Multivariable (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Han Chinese people descend from Homo Erectus Pekinensis and NOT anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens Sapiens like everyone else

Dear Multivariable,

I am scientist specializing in the fields of anthropology and paleoanthropology. I understand that it is much more pleasant to say that "all humans are descended from a common ancestor" but the scientific reality is much more different than the politically correct misinformation being spread both by some anthropologists as well as some world governments. In light of trying to maintain scientific purity, please refrain from suppressing the scientifically proven information about the ancestry of Han Chinese out of your efforts to put "political correct," but inaccurate information on this article.

I am posting the following peer reviewed scientific journals which provide verifiable scientific evidence that the modern Han Chinese people have both the genes and morphological traits of their prehistoric ancestor, archaic Homo Erectus Pekinensis, and that they are NOT descended from anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens like the rest of humanity. Of course interbreeding between the Chinese Homo Erectus Pekinensis and the African Homo Sapiens has occured to some degree, but it does NOT mean everyone in China is descended from African Homo Sapiens. All of the following scientific studies are published in verifiable and reliable peer reviewed sources such as Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal and Oxford University's Oxford Journals as well as BMC Biology Journal of Biology.

Please watch this video from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which is also a peer reviewed reliable source:

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Please take some to time to read the following peer reviewed and published scientific studies:

1.) New Scientist Chinese challenge to "Out of Africa" hypothesis

2.) Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

3.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer

4.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals Global Patterns of Human DNA Sequence Variation in a 10-kb Region on Chromosome 1 by Ning Yu, Z. Zhao, Y.-X. Fu, N. Sambuughin, M. Ramsay, T. Jenkins, E. Leskinen, L. Patthy, L. B. Jorde, T. Kuromori and W.-H. Li

5.) BMC Biology Journal of Biology "Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations" by Shi H, Zhong H, Peng Y, Dong YL, Qi XB, Zhang F, Liu LF, Tan SJ, Ma RZ, Xiao CJ, Wells RS, Jin L, Su B.

6.) National Geographic Society Peking Man (Homo Pekinensis) Lived in China 200,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Thought

Thank you! --72.215.69.43 (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jay Chou album sales

Hello Multivariable. Hope you get read note. I'm the one who's been editing Jay Chou's wikipedia page. Let me first say that I really like Jay Chou's music; he is one of my favorite artists. However, this is also why I've been changing his album sales. If you look at the top-selling artists of all time, the list with 175 million album sales would include people like Madonna, Elton John, Mariah Carey, The Rolling Stones, all people who are considered "legends" in the music industry.

I understand your intentions, and trust me, I too would like to get people to appreciate Jay Chou more because he is a phenomenal artist. However, although your intentions may be right, your method of doing so is wrong.

To equate Jay Chou's album sales with these artists not only diminishes the credentials of wikipedia, but also Jay Chou as an artist. Some people will read the page and go ,"Of course he didn't sell 175 million albums!" and automatically feel much of the other information is falsified by some die-hard fan. To exaggerate or falsify any information would in the opposite efect, make Jay Chou look cheap. And because the albums sales changed from 175 million to 30 million, this gives me a very strong indication that the total sale numbers are vague and inconclusive. And, logically, wouldn't you agree that if there is information as inconclusive as this, it shouldn't even be mentioned? Thus, I suggest we keep the album sales blank b/c (1) There is currently no citation indicating his total album sales (2) Adding anything because it "sounds right" would be equivalent to "nit-picking", diminishing this website's credibility and (3) respecting Jay Chou and other artists by not adding falsified/exaggerated information.

Hope you understand this with the best of intentions. Take care. -75.22.141.96 (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that needs a citation, but it was uncited and nobody bothered to question it until two days ago. That's why I added the tag (which, if anyone sees it, is a sure sign that it may not be true). I also started a discussion, where I mentioned that Asia sales alone are (probably - yeah, need to get a better source) in the range of 21+ million.

That's fine, we'll keep it blank for now, but I think 30 million may be already be more in the ballpark. Of course, we'll need citations, if you're willing to help look for them. -Multivariable (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

CKS Memorial Hall Photo

Ok go ahead and reupload the CKS photo 10:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denglong (talk • contribs)

Formosa Betrayed

Why did you reverse my edits? Formosa Betrayed is a Pan-Green film and you obviously know that (it even says it on the website). People need to know that its biased. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.75.22 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not how you describe a film, regardless of how biased it is (see reverted edit [1]). It's clear where you're coming from, and although I agree with you, you can't just add stuff like that without sources (the source you provided said it might affect the 2008 elections, not that the film was made to affect the elections). The fact that it wasn't even allowed to be shot in Taiwan and (correct me if I'm wrong) it was never released in Taiwan goes completely against that. -Multivariable (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)