User talk:Causteau/Archive 3

Warning

Please refrain from edit warring. I'm referring to The Jerusalem Post article, but this also applies to other articles as well. Keep in mind that WP:3RR states, "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule." Please discuss your edits (i.e. though the dispute resolution process) instead. Thanks. Khoikhoi 23:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. You might even consider following WP:1RR (I have suggested the same to Hans). Even I don't follow it at times, but when I have I've noticed that it's always yielded better results in a content dispute. As for Bukhari, noted. Hopefully this dispute doesn't get out of hand, what needs to happen is that all parties should follow WP:DR instead of accusing one another of being the disruptive one. Regards, Khoikhoi 08:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Hello Causteau, clearly Andrew Lancaster has communication problems with you that are very similar to those that I experienced. He started a thread at Wikiquette alerts, a place for informal dispute resolution. I just noticed that he forgot to notify you; I am sure that was not intentional. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b

Dear Causteau, I've never tried being formal about it before, and maybe that was my error. So I'd like to point out that you have made at least 4 reverts of edits, all mine, within less than 24 hours. In other words, you have violated the WP:3RR rule. Of course that is something you've done many times in the past, but I think I am forced to start taking a stricter line on this. I would of course much prefer a more constructive approach to improving the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Dear" Andrew, the above is yet another shameless untruth on your part. A quick (or slow) inspection of the article in question's recent history readily disproves your predictably distorted charges. Nice try though. Causteau (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Please remember to be civil when taking part in discussions and avoid personal attacks. Consider this a final warning. You will be blocked if this continues. --neon white talk 13:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Firstly i'm not an administrator, i'm not claiming to be one, just a regular editor. The behaviour i was referring to was accusations of lying on the part of other editors. Whilst you may feel that other editors are not being truthful, please try and stay calm and resist from commenting on those individual editors, this will not help your case and is pointless as nothing will be done without the history of the article being thoroughly checked to see what's happened there. Just state your version of events clearly and you'll find editor's much easier to work with and more likely to consider things from your point of view. --neon white talk 17:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 27 2008 to Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 3 hours.

This is a token short block, mostly to record my determination that you did indeed break 3RR, since the fighting seems to be largely over now.

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b photo

Thanks for the effort of getting a photo and finishing what I was giving up on!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b

I am going to report you for your latest 4 reverts. Please understand that I do not see this as a good way of working, but I feel forced to this. You seem impervious to discussion sometimes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't do 4 reverts, though I'm sure that is what you were hoping for. Secondly, if anyone should be reporting anyone else, it should be me reporting you for constant manipulation and removal of reliable sources. As for "discussion", the E1b1b talk page more than shows who is really impervious to and, in fact, completely disregards discussion. Causteau (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do get an opinion for me about the need to revert people for trying to improve wording, and the need to pay attention to the fact that particular combinations of words like "and" and "is" are verifiably sourced. Eventually maybe we'll have several refs on every word and comma. Surely you must realize that this is nonsense? Spend your energy more positively please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:TE

You like citing rules, so please, look at WP:TE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR

There is a new discussion about E1b1b at the 3RR noticeboard. You are invited to respond to my suggestion there. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Another fossilized Near East E1b1b origins reference?

Still don't know where these come from, but here is another one for the collection. I continue to ask around, but still find no source. I remain interested in the idea, but not sure how we should interpret webpages like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you felt the need to send me that link since it's not even cited as a source in the E1b1b article. It also quite clearly states that Family Tree DNA was the source for its haplogroup descriptions ("Family Tree DNA provided the following thumbnail summaries of the different haplogroups"), and Family Tree DNA likewise is not cited as a source in the E1b1b article. Causteau (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not suggesting this go in the article. I thought you might be interested. The summaries on FT DNA no longer say these things by the way, and I think I've said before that I am reasonably sure that old FT DNA summaries from approx >5 years ago are the source for all the other comments, and I have continued to be interested in double checking it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest that you were suggesting that this should go in the article. I stated that I wasn't sure why you felt the need to send me that link because it is not cited as a source in the E1b1b article and neither is Family Tree DNA. But now I know why. Causteau (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative photos

(You can use these photos) because we know they are E1b1b

Orville Wright - E1b1b1a2 (V13)

Harvey William - E1b1b1c1 (M34)

Another suggestion is looking for Berbers, Somalians, North Afircan Arabs & Albanians who are confirmed E1b1b.

This is even more important with Jews or Albanians (More than 70% of Jews or Albanians are not E1b1b1 how do we know the photos you posted are E1b1b1?)

I have some photos of confirmed E1b1b, but I have to ask them for permission to use their photos first, for now we can use these two confirmed ones.

Also a group photo of Somalians with a text description saying that more than 75% of Somlians are E1b1b1 will be much safer than listing one photo of an untested person.

Cadenas2008 (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Forum link in E1b1b article

Hi, I got your explanation now. I should explain further... First, I accept the citation needed template and have not removed that. I have also contacted Denis Savart to ask if he can help to give better sourcing, so there is no fundamental disagreement. However, I thought it better to leave something in rather than having no sourcing information at all, and arguably this is an acceptable source in this case because:

1. The link is not just to any forum, but to the E-M35 Phylogeny project, where Denis can be seen to be a global moderator.
2. I am not the author of the post being referred to.
3. It can also be seen on the DNA project webpage that Denis is the admin there, with the same e-mail address.

So in any case this is not just hearsay. It is not self-published. And the sourcing can be cross referenced pretty well. Perhaps Denis' position, and the verifiability of it, could be explained in a footnote to make bet with what we have now until we get something better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something like that is what I am already proposing to him. In the meantime the sourcing is arguably not perfect, whatever we do. But I think you are using the term "self published" in a fairly strict way in your reply, which would eliminate a lot of sources that work in practice -i.e. because all things are self published to some extent, not being "self published" in Wiki rules surely would mean not having any oversight. Obviously as a trusted administrator and moderator this is not really the case here. Also the over-riding concern in the Wiki policies you mention, as I understand it, is whether the information can be verified, which we have here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Moors Edits

Causteau, if you look through the lengthy discussions and history revisions on the page you will see that I reverted the page back to it's original edits. Numerous other edits had been removed recently which were not in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines or did not take into account previous discussions. Please look through the history on the discussion page. I stated I was reverting the edits to a previous states before. The newer edits didn't take into account the lengthy edits done by previous Wikipedians. Therefore the edits that were added should not have been removed unless there was a consensus. Which there clearly wasn't. What I am doing is an attempt to replace text that existed before the last edits had been made. If the latest editors would have taken into account the history of discussions from before they wouldn't have placed information that was agreed on to be biased such as statements that "Moors were not Negroes" etc...I along with Paul B have argued against these numerous individuals who continue to try to put a slant on Moors being of one race and excluding the African Diaspora. There are numerous accounts and references to books with information on this in the discussion page. The problem is that individuals who decide to edit this aprticular page as well as any Wikipedia page don't take the time to review the discussions and choose to add their opinions and beliefs which aren't backed by any facts. It has been argued that Britannica and other sources are slanted and when I added older text as proof predating the Britannica text it proved the point I was stating. I have no interest in continuing to argue against these individuals who make claims that have already been dispelled.--Gnosis (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has changed a lot since the time you are presumably speaking of. Other editors including myself have since added many images, links, and actual sources which your revert completely did away with. The fact remains that you can't single-handedly remove the edits of a bunch of different editors just because the page isn't as it used to be -- the latter is to be expected. Now, if you can find a way of incorporating into the current version the material that you feel is essential, then please do that instead of completely undo/removing other editors' work without consensus. Causteau (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Casteau, you are absolutely right! I thought about it after changing and was actually undoing the revert to reinstate it as it was. There had been numerous edits and it is unfair for me to change the whole page in such a way. I will incorporate my edits into the new page and replace the factual information that was removed or overlooked without harming the work of editors that have worked just as hard as I have.--Gnosis (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What gives here? I'm editing and adding citation and you revert my edits? Irene Marsha Silverblatt is a Eurocentrist. Either you allow me to edit the page or I will revert to the previous edits which have been changed without consensus. You obviously did not read the history of the page and in doing so haven't followed Wiki guidelines. By deleting large blocks of text that was there previously. Or made edits as per referring to the discussion page.--Gnosis (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What gives? Well, for starters, you're removing reliable sources (1, 2, 3). And when you're not doing that, you're replacing them with Afrocentric ones. I believe I also made this clear in my edit summaries (1, 2). And Irene Marsha Silverblatt is only a "Eurocentrist" in your personal interpretation whereas Ivan Van Sertima is infamous for his Afrocentric views. Causteau (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You are sadly mistaken and I suggest you read the book. Had you looked at the discussion page and properly referenced it as you were supposed to and announced your edits you would have seen this. Please read the book first before making any unjust assertions. Otherwise I will have to revert to the most earlier revisions.It is apparent that you are just upset that I have proven my point. I suggest you read the book to get an understanding before making assertions. In the book there is also a discussion about African Diaspora migration patterns towards northern Africa. You are the one who is now crying foul now that I have proven my case. If you don't stop I will revert back to the earliest edits. Your claims about Afrocentric authors also holds no weight. Just because someone holds a centric view doesn't mean that they are biased. I went along with your little statement about Van Sertima being an Afrocentric. But when I provide a European author backing up my case you cry foul. But I say you are wrong, you are the one who has been exposed for trying to impose your POV and views.--Gnosis (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not mistaken since I have access to an online database which includes Albert Churchward's Origin and Evolution of the Human Race. And the book does not once mention Moors. This, in fact, is why you are unable to produce a page number citing which exact page in the book supports your assertion. And Afrocentric sources -- like the Ivan Van Sertima book you cited in this edit, and the Afrocentric "African Front" website you referenced in your latest diatribe -- most certainly are questionable sources. Per WP:QS:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

You complain about non-existent "Eurocentrism", yet have no qualms whatsoever about including Afrocentric sources in the article. Gimme a break. Causteau (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure you have an online database with the book. Give me a break okay.. I read the book and as I stated it talks about the migration of Africans of various Diaspora to that region. Now if you knew youre history you would know that the Arabs weren't even from the North African region. As I said read the book and stop playing games. Or I will revert to the earlier edits.--Gnosis (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL The book doesn't once mention Moors. That's pure original research on your part and you know it. This is why you are still and will forever more be unable to produce a page number supporting your assertion. I suggest you quit playing these silly games, and stop trying to deceive Wikipedia's readership. Causteau (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The book doesn't have to mention Moors it mentions people from that area that you are trying to claim as being Arab or Berber. I am stating the fact that Moors were made up of various groups which included Western Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans and Berbers and Arabs. You are trying to say it is only the two groups.. If you read the book you can easily see where the correlation is and proof. Instead you try to say "Ohh it doesn't say Moors in the book" You obviously have no idea how to research a subject let alone write any kind of thesis or any other type of research. The bottom line is I placed the citation. It's accurate and you don't want to give the credit. Therefore you are not adhering to the rules of the game because you want to keep showing your biased racist view. That is evident in your wanting to use the term Negro which modern anthropologist have proven isn't even a correct term because all groups share similar genetic features from facial cranial and bone structure. Please before arguing a moot point try to do some reading first. Once again read the book for once.

Well after looking through the talk/discussion page it seems most would agree with the previous edits before you and whomever else started editing. It is unfair to take these other individuals into consideration especially since the previous edits stood for the greater part of almost 2 years. Just because you and someone else quickly edited the page doesn't mean that you went about it the right way. Which would have entailed voicing your edits on the discussion page before removing large amounts of text. Maybe if you would have voiced your desires and edits or at least looked at the discussion group you would have seen what was going on. Regardless, just because there are newer edits doesn't mean that they should stand especially when previous edits have stood longer than the newer edits. You claim that it will wipe out previous edits but on the contrary your edits have wiped out quite a bit of other individual edits. It is only fair to revert back to previous edits. If you would like to participate in the discussion on the talk page then I am more than happy to carry on these discussions there. I'm sorry but I will be reverting back to the previous edits. And to the contrary it appears you used the opportunity to change a bunch of pre-existing text which should have not been done and on the basis of there being other edits to the page I will only change the portions that have drastically changed. In the future please refrain from making major edits as you did without referring to the talk page. Thank You --Gnosis (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The book does need to mention Moors and explicitly because, believe it or not, Moors is what the Moors article is actually about -- not Berbers or Arabs. This is the only way the information can be rendered verifiable to the reading public. From WP:VER:

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

And from WP:PROVEIT:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

What you are doing -- as your latest edit summary cleary shows: "reference provides proof of Western/Sub Suharan African Diaspora in North Africa where Moors are said to have been from which dispells the claims of the statement Moors were not Negroes" -- is attempting to discredit the sourced assertion that Moors were not blacks simply because there may have been some blacks present in North Africa, a conclusion that the Churchward source itself never reaches (to do that, it first needs to mention Moors!). This is known as synthesis and is a common form of original research. From WP:SYNTH:

Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

All in all, it's a quite embarrassingly obvious bit of original research. Causteau (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Omotic

Hi, Omotic again. I trust the edit summary is clear enough. Better to name people than to say "some", easily dated phrasing such as "is beginning to" is best avoided, I don't know any bio article that dabs a person w the tag "(professor)"; "(linguist)" is the norm for linguists. Also, by changing the general conception to "some" people, and the POV you prefer to "many" people, you are engaging in POV pushing. kwami (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not engaging in "POV pushing" any more than you are when you changed the article to read that "Omotic is generally regarded as part of the Afro-Asiatic languages" with no qualification whatsoever. Next time you want to accuse someone of something, at least first have a leg to stand on. Causteau (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot how lovely it is to work with you. Are you being obstinate, or did you simply not bother to read my comments? kwami (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)