User talk:Ackees/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Ackees/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  --soUmyaSch 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

British African-Caribbean community

Hi Ackees, having seen your work on the Jamaica page, and just checked your contributions I've seen that you've been doing some good work on other articles. I've been working on this page, British African-Caribbean community for a couple of weeks in an area horribly under-represented, pretty much alone - Wikipedia has a million articles about Star Wars and yet little on these matters. If you check my user page you'll see I've got a number of other related articles highlighted, some of which need work and need to be linked. I wonder if you could take a look at the British African-Caribbean community and add thoughts if you have any? Thanks. --Zleitzen 09:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellant contributions to the page Ackees. It's coming together very well. --Zleitzen 23:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not wrong about Cuba, Ackees. Initially when I put a little Systemic bias box on my user page, I was quite confident and excited about being able to add to topics that were lacking and that I had some knowledge of, and that I believed that I had a fairly neutral academic interest in. Those were more innocent times. Editing on Cuban topics is a daily warzone, I stumbled head first into this [1] which turned out to be one of nastiest disputes in Wikipedia's tenure. I was also accused of bias for writing "Cuba is prone to devastating hurricanes" and so it goes on! It's a welcome relief to edit on other subjects where you don't feel like you're banging you're head against a brick wall!--Zleitzen 23:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

British African-Caribbean community

Hi Ackees, the British African-Caribbean community article has now become one of only 38 Culture and society articles to be voted "featured article" status. And is now one of only 1180 featured articles, of a total of 1,504,496 articles overall! Featured articles are ones that are considered the best in Wikipedia. Thanks very much for your additions which were invaluable. Whatsmore, your addition of numerous artists, writers etc meant that I created articles for most of those, which was a pre-requisite for the main article reaching featured status. So the knock on effect of your work on this one article is tangible already. Thanks again, and I wish you to share in the congratulations!--Zleitzen 05:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Great news, Zleitzen! I felt very proud when a veteran such as yourself asked me to contribute. My wikidness has been fairly dormant recently, aside from a few minor corrections here and there. Nevertheless, I'm very glad to learn that your dedication has been recognised. Of course, you realise this means that we're now officially Did-imen!:-) Ackees 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ackees. Though I have no doubt the page could be improved further, it is satisfying that we have managed to present a diverse collection of links and other bits of detail in one digestable, easily accessible article. Which is not really available for readers and young people anywhere else. On one page we manage to link a vast array of information about Viv Edwards, Val McCalla, Linton Kwesi Johnson, Ronald Moody etc etc. Excellant. As wikipedia is open source, and available to be reproduced by anyone, I have already seen local community sites "steal" sections of both our writings on that page to add to their own sites which is also great. You're not interested in Cuba by any chance? We could always do with an extra pair of eyes sifting through the mistakes on those articles! Cheers.--Zleitzen 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Zleitzen. I do have an interest in Cuba, having visited the country, etc - so I've given it a look and made a couple of tweaks which hopefully add, rather than detract from its efficacy. Obviously, I'm nervous at the thought of this work leading to my being inevitably targetted by various maniacs - but...

Cut and paste move of Brixton riot (1985)

Hi there, I note you moved Brixton riot (1985) using cut and paste. This is not the right way to move an article, because the revision history is not maintained. I've reverted your change and incorporated your changes into the original article. If you want to move the article you need to use the move tab at the top of the article. See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page for more information. Edward 09:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

I just wanted to say 'nice work'. I stumbled across some of your edits, and you seen to have a real knack for removing bias and doing cleanups in a good, non-confrontational way. Great stuff! --Mcwatson 15:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mcwatson, your appreciation is much appreciated. Ackees 15:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jamaican Creole

On a totally different issue than on Talk:Jamaica, what is your opinion of the Patwah article being at Jamaican Creole? If Eskimos are now called Inuit because that's the name they prefer, shouldn't Jamaican Creole be at Jamaican Patois? I've asked for clarification on language article names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, and a few other places, but got no response. - BillCJ 03:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

• Discussion copied from Talk:Jamaica to avoid being off topic on that page, and to continue it here. - BillCJ 04:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're on the verge of violating the 3RR policy on Jamaica. Please go read the comments I've put on the talk page. I'm not getting involved in debating the actual issue here, I'm concerned about how you're handling the process, and you're running afoul of our policies. Please address my concerns, or else the material you've added will be removed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Copied discussion from Jamaica

BillCJ. Do not patronise me. What I have said is 'verifiable'. Go to the list of Jamaican Prime Ministers. How many of them are 'dark-skinned' by Jamaican standards? Only one. That is the verification. It is you who are biased. You are removing this paragraph not because it is not 'verifiable', but because you personally don't like what is being said as a result of your own subjective bias. I only have to look at your page to see where your bias lies - it is as plain as a picture - and a picture is worth a thousand words. You are applying a double-standard. If you were being sincere you would systematically go through the entire article removing every sentence that was not 'verified'. How dare you interfere in a subject of which you have literally no knowledge. As I said, go to the list of Jamaican Prime Ministers. How many of them are 'dark-skinned'? Ackees 01:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So now you know my complete personal history from my user page? Who is being patronizing? Oh, and I only have one picture on my user page, and it was a gift! - BillCJ 02:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dearest fellow Wikers, I have seen the error of my ways. Please accept my sincere and humble apologies. I have now included 10 purely academic references, including some from things called 'books' (as opposed to just ripping stuff from the CIA facebook). These 10 references now mean that my humble little paragraph contains half of all the references cited on the page!! Further attacks on my academically well-founded paragraph will result in a citation for vandalism. And like I said, a picture is worth a thousand words.Ackees 02:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for provinging the sources. I will be wading through them as I have time to verify the content, and possiblebly adding counter sources. Btw, it's counter-productive to threaten vandalism charges in content disrputes, and makes it sound like you're from "bak a Mocho". And you are welcome to add unsourced tags to, or even remove, any items in the article of which you question the validity. Oh, and I always find it odd that those who decry judging by the color of one's skin are so quick to judge others who disagree with them by their color. My parents raised me not to judge people by their color, and now you want me to judge the PMs by their color? What kind of ganja are your smoking? THat's the most racist crap I've heard in awhile, and you'll just ignore it because you've decided I'm biased. You no absolutely nothing about me, yet you ask me how I dare you interfere in a subject of which you have literally no knowledge. That is quite a presumptuos statement, and it proves your own racial bias quite well. - BillCJ 03:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep adding to that section, and it'll soon be half the article, to go with have the references! I'm already in the process of splitting off the Emigrant section to another article because of its length. Perhaps you should conseder moving it to its own or another page (such as Race in Jamaica), as I'm sure the section will grow as others add other valid points of view. A smaller summary can be left in its place, with a DAB ilink to the main article. Respectfully asking, even tho I'm white and can't possible understand the importance of the issue to Jamaicans~ - BillCJ 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ|Up to this moment you have still not provided a single 'counter' to my paragraph.

To answer your charges. I have not 'judged' Jamaica's PMs. I have simply noted the correlation between skin colour and social status. And, as I have not 'judged' them, you cannot accuse me of racism, after all, being the Prime Minister is not in itself a 'character flaw' - I wasn't accusing them of some crime. However, although you say, 'I know nothing about you', I note that you describe yourself by a word which means 'pure' 'light' and 'clean'. Self reflection is such a difficult habit to acquire.

How odd that you should accuse me of being 'racist', yet in the same breath claim that you can't appreciate the importance of 'the issue' to Jamaicans. You need to make up your mind.

I did not judge you by your colour. I had no idea that you had a pale complexion until you started boasting about it (believe me, I'm not impressed). I was merely drawing attention to the clear bias towards a certain romanticised, euro-centric ideal of beauty that is reflected on your page. You might be green for all I know, but your tastes are your tastes. If you don't want people to know what you truly, madly, deeply love, then don't exhibit it.

I find it sad that you will be devoting your precious and valuable time to 'adding counter sources'. Presumably, this means that you'll present studies proving that the darker a person's skin is, the more likely they are to be rich and powerful. Oh dear! I really ought to warn you that, with the world's political-economy structured the way it is, you've set yourself be a very, very, very lengthy and tiresome task. Perhaps if we come back in a hundred years you'll have something to show for your efforts.

Instead of all that bluster you could always just admit that you were wrong and try and adjust to the more accurate world view I have afforded you. Most of your comments mean that the 'thanks' you initially gave ring somewhat hollow. One Love xx Ackees 04:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow! It's amazing what you've come away with from my comments.

One, how do you interpret Respectfully asking, even tho I'm white and can't possible understand the importance of the issue to Jamaicans as a boast? Actually, for eight years of my life, one might have thought "white" was was first name, and "bwoy" my last, judging by what Jamaicans called me! So inspite of your singular interpretation of the meaning of the word "white" (assuming I understnad your oratations correctly), many Jamaicans thought that was my color! The rest of the statement was meant as sarcasm, as I do not think my race, nationality, religion, or continental origin of my ancestors limits me from understanding anything, especially human nature.

Second, you wrote, I was merely drawing attention to the clear bias towards a certain romanticised, euro-centric ideal of beauty that is reflected on your page. Perhaps that is so, but that was not what you actually said. I can't respond to what you don't actually say. As to what my "tastes" are, what is on that page is only a small portion of my interests and tastes, even in articles I edit. So again, I hardly think you have enough info to judge my "tastes" completely, assuming that is what you actually meant (which I doubt). Also, can I ask you to enlighten me as to what my certain romanticised, euro-centric ideal of beauty is?

As to my thanks, I asked you on several occasions to provide sources - you finally did, for which I thanked you. What I think of your sources has nothing to do with that.

Presumably, this means that you'll present studies proving that the darker a person's skin is, the more likely they are to be rich and powerful. Honestly, the counter to that was not really the point of your piece, though it is part of the foundation for it. I'm not arguing that racism hasn't, or doesn't, exist in the world, nor I am ignoring the ills commited by people who happen to look like me in some way. However, the conclusions you draw basically state that the only reason some have not succeeded is soley because of their color. That assumes you know the hearts of every person who ever made a decision that affected people of a certain color, and you do not.

Life is often not fair, and that manifests itself in many ways, not just the color of one's skin. People are judged unfairly for many reasons, color being just one of them. None of those reasons are right, and none are worse than any other - they are all wrong! People are born with certain advantages, and certian disadvantages, and they vary from person to person,place to place, and culture to culture. People all through history have overcome great disadvantages to accomplish many things in life, and it is a great disservice to them to blame their successes or failures on their skin color and ancestry, without any recognition of other factors in their lives.

Remember one more thing: throughout human history, centers of power have vaired, as have the colors of these in power worldwide. 4500 eyars ago, the center of poewr in the workld was in Africa, then it moved more to the Middle East. Two thousand years ago, most Northern Europeans were roming the continent as savages, and were called "barbarians" by the darker, more civilized rulers of the world at that time. 1500 years later, they began ruling the world. Have you ever thought to give a serious study as to how that happened, one that actually credits the good things they did to accomplish what they did, and not just focusing on the evil that they did? Is there a people or nation anywhere in history that has not done bad or evil things? Of course, that depsends on how one defines bad or evil. - BillCJ 04:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 05:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my talk page

Many thanks for letting me know about your additions to the Jamaica article. I'm glad, that despite my somewhat 'short' tone at the time, you took the offered reasons in the correct spirit. Trust me, if you had left it up as it was, and then gone away for a while, someone else would have removed it. At least this way, there are now citations to back the paragraph up, which ensures that it remains. Sometimes, yes, you get situations where there are more citations for one section than another, but take a look at Barbados, which only has three for the entire article!

Thanks for the well-wishes, good luck editing wiki-style! Sephui 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review

I have nominated British African-Caribbean community for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:C&gLASlogo.gif

Thanks for uploading File:C&gLASlogo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Roger de Grey

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Roger de Grey, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.rwa.org.uk/dec/degrey.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

E1b1b article

Thanks, good decision! Coon or no Coon the images had nothing to do with Y-DNA & should have never been there in the first place! Cadenas2008 (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ackees, I respect all calls for vigilance against racism, especially pseudo scientific racism which is especially dangerous. Please do not confuse that with any other agreement or disagreement we have. I hope you can accept it if I split some of them up for your consideration...

1. I am opposed to accusing people of immorality as a replacement for rational debate. You started this not with your debate with Causteau, but with your initial response to me which focused entirely on the fact that I added a link to your image box on the talk page. That is a distraction to real conversation.
2. I am opposed to accusing anyone of something as important as Hitlerism before you even read their argument. It is a really bad habit and helps no one. Whether or not Causteau is a Nazi is something we are not going to work out or resolve on Wikipedia, and because of this your accusations look like very strong accusations with a very weak foundation, i.e. unreasonable. Causteau has not sought to explain any connection between his ideas and anything to do with fascism or segregationism, except that he referred to some old descriptions of phenotypes which were apparently also used for other purposes. You teased these references out of him after debate had already gotten nasty. (I suppose you may consider this a positive achievement?)
3. As Causteau rightly pointed out, you in fact changed you argument completely based on attacking what the individual Causteau was writing (which I do not defend) rather than sticking to the subject. This is called "ad hominem" debate. The reason this is to be strongly discouraged in most cases is because it achieves nothing good. We do not need to try to analyze Causteau too much because this discussion about two photographs was not a contest between good and evil, and Hitler and segregationism were subjects you brought in. I do not claim to know to what extent Causteau's thinking is affected by dangerous ideas, but I can see that they were basically irrelevant in this case. Both photos were perfectly acceptable on any objective basis.
4. I think you have to ask yourself a bit more about what you are trying to achieve. At the first sign that someone's thinking might be influenced in any way by an incorrect source you wanted to expose it and forbid not only it, but also anything connected to it. You did not want to debate it. Race is a very controversial subject but there are different ways of grouping humankind and you clearly are interested in this, apparently quite emotionally (like Causteau?). In any case in an article involving population genetics we can not ignore this. So the real question at hand here is not that you think race (or whatever you want to call it) exists, but over how you think it should be discussed in public. And concerning this point, your approach is that you want certain arguments ignored, purged, banned, and you even want associated information and arguments purged. No matter how much sympathy decent people will have for this sentiment, please ask yourself whether this is the right approach to discussion about race or any other scientific information. Isn't this precisely what the Nazis did? The fact of the matter is that this stops scientific thinking, which is also what the Nazis did. (Hitler was not a Darwinist, as is sometimes claimed.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for avoiding mission creep on the E1b1b article coming from the debate over the photos.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wondering if you are watching the new outbreak of unpleasantness on the E1b1b article a few other ones since User:Wapondaponda was blocked for being a sockpuppet? Would be interested in your reading. Third parties appearing seems to still Causteau's worst manifestations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

M1 mtDNA

M1

Whenever you have the time please examine this! Dr Cerny & kivisilid either of them is arguablly the leading mtDNA geneticist in the Horn fo Africa region, they are bets informed on this subject. Both clearly stated that M1 came from Africa (I didn't need a scientist to tell me that, but for wikipedia rules sake) Thats the source

Cerny et al. 2007 Kivisild et al. 2004

Mr Causteau is quoting a paper by a less known Gonzalez? who claims M1 migrated from India to Ethiopia. (A Physical impossibility since India doesn't have M1 or any upstream lineages! let alone L3)

• The tircky part is thats its true many M1a clades -especially in Yemen are younger than M2~! but that doesn't mean that M1 is younger than M2 & M1 is almost exlusive to East Africa/North Africa.

I tried drawing a map for him, but I think he didn't like it, please don't go by my word & do your own research & see! Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:C&gLASlogo.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:C&gLASlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ackees (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)