User talk:CenterofGravity

Welcome

Hello, CenterofGravity! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

white people

do not add that study again there is a disscusion going on the talk page now about adding that study it seems controverisal a consenus must be reached before it can be added and so far the consenus is agaisnt it please do not add it again you will be engaeing in an edit war if you do--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

look the aticle is about identity not ancestry,which has been echoed by other editors and over 90 percent identify as white that is all that matters admixture does not matter admixture would not make those people mestizo just as the 30 percent of white americans of north america are not mestizo because they may be 100 percent caucasian ancestry the study has no basis in the article,and the point that agentina is known as the europe of south america does matter because its saying its culture is mainly european and its people are largely white population--Wikiscribe (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was that article suppose to sway me that article just talks about possible racism in argentina, as i have said before you seem like you might have an agenda being you are disinterested in admixture in other white populations and only seen interested in argentina.The only clear cut solution to this is to add somewhere within the first paragraph that many white poplulations around the world have non white admixture , just as there is on the articleWhite American article or on the White Latin American we cant just pick on argentina now could we that might be showing some biased--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i did and have assumed good faith but with your tone with the singleing out argentinas white popluation admixture only ,it gets hard to to assume good faith over a possible agenda being the article is not about argentina but its about white people and a few countries outside of europe are used as examples of countries with large white populations and regardless of what you say reliable sources say that there is a large white population in argentina i would ask you to read this policy WP:Sources--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as i have stated this article is not about argentina its but a small part of the article,and just adding sources does not validate that the context of what you want to add is relevant to the subject.You still have not given a valid reason why statements of admixture to argentina "ONLY" should be added, i have mentioned other solutions which are on other pages pages about race like at the bottom of the White American article lets just make a sweeping statement that all white populations may have admixture of non white genes why only argentina why not be neutral i doubt anybody would object i would be in agreenece to this statement--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i already pointed out a study on white americans also there is one on the white latin american page that covers all latin american countries there are studies for various european countries in the Genetic History of Europe article that explain non caucasian ie sub sahran african admixture within many european countries such as germany united kingdom est,i mean you seem not to want to come to a neutral solution that would take care of this admixture question so we dont seem to be singleing out just argentina, work with me here you brought up the question i dont have an agenda i just want all countries mentioned about possible admixture--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from the article white people article,There is no universal definition of "whiteness" as a human physical characteristic. The most notable trait describing people who identify as white is light skin,although even this trait is not universal amongst people identifying as white, for example there is an: "influence of social class to the fluidity of color/race identification in Brazil. Wealthier people with darker phenotypes tend to classify themselves and be classified by others in lighter categories".[8][9]--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because thats what sources say that the population of argentina has anywhere from as low as 85% to 97% white population that would be higer percent than united staes which is 81% counting white hispanics of course,and agentina through the years had undergone a deliberate white washing of its population by mass european migration ,i mean i dont get it are you trying to say there are no white people in argentina--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it has numbers of the white population in uruguay and is sourced from the state department and the cia world factbook and explains in a brief summary why there is such a large percentage of whites there.The sources stated are considered reliable sources on the numbers of whites in this country what is the issue? because you dont belive it ,is your problem ,you think there are no white people there and that white people in latin america is a conspiracy what can i tell you sources state otherwise--Wikiscribe (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dont be rude ,than stop making uneeded changes--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't have had a problem if I wasn't being accused of removing sources. CenterofGravity (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks, that's exactly what we need, some overview. I'll take a proper look at it when I have time. I do think that if the Argentina section of the article is going to discuss ancestry then we need some perspectives other than a claim that all "white" Argentinians are descended from people who arrived from the old world. Let's try to find a way to have a more balanced discussion in the article. Thanks for your contributions. Alun (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

Please don't add the picture of Adolf Hitler to the white people article again.[1] It's deliberately provocative and disruptive. I don't know what point you were trying to make. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Thanks. Alun (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White people

Hello, CenterofGravity. Both this edit and this other one were good edits of yours. You didn't have to hide either in a misleading edit summary. Please make sure to write edit summaries that actually explain what you did. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on the Argentina page.

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Argentina, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Sherlock4000 (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Argentina. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Argentina.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite

00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Kitchen Nightmares

I have posted my comments regarding the addition of the reference of the NYpost article in at the Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares#Recent_addition. I am pretty sure it meets the criteria of being a WP:RELIABLE,Wikipedia:Notability and being Wikipedia:Verifiability for inclusion in the Kitchen Nightmares topic. Roman888 (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]