User talk:MoritzB

Welcome!

Hello, MoritzB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  The Behnam 04:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not understanding how Wikipedia works

MoritzB -- you clearly do not understand how Wikipedia works. Individual personal opinion means nothing here. What counts is when contributors come up with credible scholarly critique, and cite proper reference to that critique. You are using lots of bandwidth but in every comment fail to come up with specific references to back up your personal opinions. The technical term for activity such as you are engaging is blowing wind. Skywriter 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote by Koppler is issue is whether the quote by Koppler is I doubt whether it is 1)in the right section, 2) within the scope of the article. It has also been separated from its context and it is unclear which social policies Koppler refers to?

Linda Gottfredson explains what is the prevailing mainstream view of race and intelligence and how massive, costly social programs fail their aims because they are based on flawed environmentalist hypothesis of IQ differences between the races:

"Research on group differences in intelligence is scientifically valid and socially important (Hunt & Carlson, in press, p. 5). Hunt and Carlson are also to be commended for

reporting basic facts on the science that others outside the field often deny or distort. Among the much-replicated empirical findings they mention are that IQ tests measure a

general learning ability; they predict many kinds of life success to some degree; they measure cognitive ability equally well among American blacks and whites (no measurement :bias); and they predict academic achievement equally well in both groups (no prediction bias for that outcome). Additionally, large racial gaps in cognitive abilities and :achievements continue to create tradeoffs among goals for schools and employers; the important scientific question today is not whether races differ in (average) phenotypic :intelligence, but why; social environments are not just external, but (like IQ differences among individuals) have both genetic and environmental components; and race exists as a :biological entity, or continuum. Such conclusions are mainstream among specialists on human variation in intelligence.

On political intimidation against reporting such findings, Hunt and Carlson agree that such attacks occur, are deplorable, and drive some investigators into professionally safer

pursuits. They show how major social policies, such as the No Child Left Behind Act and U.S. employment discrimination law, can fail their aims and impose serious social and :economic costs when they disregard such knowledge and presume a contrary reality. (Gottfredson, 1997; Neisser et al., 1996)."

(Linda S. Gottfredson, Applying Double Standards to “Divisive” Ideas, p.2. In press, Perspectives on Psychological Science. December 2006)

By the way, you have made a claim about the journal Intelligence. I made a refutation to your claim. Do you know agree with me about the journal?

I'll answer on some of this: first, the journal Intelligence has on its board of editors a large number of researchers who are Pioneer Fund recipients, known for their racialist views. While not all the editors share this slant, there is good indication that there are enough of them to impart a slant on the articles published.

Second the quote from Koppler is perfectly appropriate within this article, the only thing is that maybe it would gain from being summarizaed (if consensus agrees).

Third, the prevailing mainstream view of race and intelligence as defined by Gottfredson is mostly the view of Pioneer Fund cronies like her. Unfortunately, very few unbiased scientists dedicate themselves to the study of "race and intelligence"; most study one or the other, and don't go looking for a link between the two.

Lastly, while no one can argue that the B-W IQ gap doesn't exist, its significance is very controversial: does it represent a real intelligence differential, or is it an artefact of how we measure intelligence? And, even if a differential were to exist, is the cause of this gap genetic, environmental, a combination of both, and if a combination, how much of either? While according to the PF crowd, the answers to all these questions are a foregone conclusion (anything to prove Blacks are inferior), there are many, many scientists who think the answers are very different.

Hope it helps. --Ramdrake 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the survey done by Snyderman and Rothman 53% of the psychologists, sociologists, cognitive scientists, educators, and geneticists were in agreement that the black-white gap was entirely or partially genetic. Only 17% supported the environmentalist hypothesis. The sample was large (n=1,020). Very few of them were grantees of the Pioneer Fund.

Thus, if any view can be said to be in the majority it is the the hereditarian view. There is no evidence that the environmentalist view would be the majority view. I am aware of no study which would approach the reliability of Snyderman-Rothman study in surveying the prevailing opinion of the academia in this issue.

(Snyderman, M. and Rothman, S. (February 1987). "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing". American Psychologist 42 (2): 137-144.)

The study is still referenced in the article but the results have been omitted. I will add them.

And I remind you that you haven't provided evidence to your view that a disproportionate amount of hereditarians would sit on the board of the Intelligence. Remember that only 17% of respondents supported the environmentalist view in the survey.

MoritzB 22:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How nice of you to trot out that nice push poll. First of all, about 1000 researchers were polled, about half of which declined to answer. Second, the researchers were chosen according to their prominence in the field of race and intelligence research. This wasn't a random sample. Third, the respondent were asked to choose between a "partly or wholly genetic" origin of the B-W IQ gap, versus an "wholly-environmental" original. A normal poll would have given the respondent the choice between "wholly environmental", "part-genetic, part-environmental" or "wholly genetic". By rolling the last two options into one, it artificially inflated the support for genetic causes to the B-W IQ gap, in a sample that's alreayd non-random.

These results have often been contested, as there are serious reasons to invalidate the poll.--Ramdrake 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Read the study.

MoritzB 00:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Study? It's the results of a friggin' poll! Or more to the point, which part of my explanation are you contesting with that nonsense comment?.--Ramdrake 00:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You claim that "a half of the researchers declined to answer". This is false. 14% of IQ experts did not answer to the survey. 52% of those responding said that the IQ gap was partially genetic (45% of all people the survey was given to)

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003suppressingintelligence.pdf

You claim that the researchers were chosen "according to their prominence in the field of race and intelligence research" and the sample "wasn't random". It was a survey of expert opinion and the method was completely appropriate. The survey was given to expert members of the American Education Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, Behavior Genetics Association, and Cognitive Science Society with no particular bias against environmentalists. Can you name a single American IQ expert who wasn't given opportunity to answer to the survey in 1988?

Your claim that "rolling the options" "part-environmental" or "wholly genetic" together they artificially inflated the support for genetic causes to the B-W IQ gap. There is no rational foundation to that claim. It is nonsense.

MoritzB 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And please sign your posts.

MoritzB 01:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the response rate for the whole questionnaire was 65%, and 86% of that 65% answered the specific question: Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of the Black-White difference in I.Q.? 86% of 65% is 56%, or about half. Second, any non-random sampling introduces a bias, and since the more prominent experts in this particular field tend to cluster around a certain opinion, that biases the sample in a specific way. Third, conflating the "partly genetic and partly environmental" option with the "totally genetic" will give the impression that the genetic explanation has more support than it actually does, it's basic logic and not my fault if you can't fathom this reasoning.--Ramdrake 02:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So please explain your logic. Some scientists are of the opinion that the gap is of entirely environmental origin and some scientists think that it is of entirely genetic origin. The rest of them think that the gap is of both genetical and environmental origin.

Snyderman could have included four alternatives to that question: entirely environmental, partly genetic (the influence of genetics is 0-50%), partly environmental (the influence of environment is 0-50%) and entirely genetic.

However, this formulation would not have affected the amount of researchers who gave an answer that genetical differences have some influence. What is your problem when the phrasing of the middle alternative was actually more favorable to the environmentalist position?

There was no logic in your statement.

MoritzB 02:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the point here: those errors allow the pollers to pass off the opinion of the minority as being the opinion of the majority, so as to give it more credibility.--Ramdrake 11:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The hereditarian view is currently the view that has most support according to the Snyderman study. Do not make assumptions about the intelligence of the reader. Only 17% of IQ experts supported the environmentalist view.

For instance, Carol Swainn (who is black) referred to the study in the following way according to the Wikipedia article:

At least one important survey suggests that a belief in the biological inferiority of some races in regard to intelligence is more common than generally supposed. Smith College professor Stanley Rothman and Harvard researcher Mark Snyderman surveyed a sample of mostly scientific experts in the field of educational psychology in the late 1980s and found that 53 percent believed IQ differences between whites and African Americans were at least partly genetic in origin, while only 17 percent attributed the IQ differences to environmental factors alone (the remainder either believed the data was currently insufficient to decide the issue or refused to answer the question).

Does Swainn mislead her readers?

Your argument that the sample was not "random" and thus introduced a "bias" is also wrong. The purpose of the study was to survey expert opinion which is of greater scientific value than The survey was targeted to experts as expert opinion is of greater scientific value. Inexpertise would be a source of bias, not expertise. It is true that more informed scholars are generally hereditarians, though.

Similar surveys have been made about global warming. Their validity and the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human behavior has been well established. Do you also deny global warming?

MoritzB 17:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You asked "did Swainn mislead readers"?

Yes, she did in that she made an obvious error of fact. Or maybe she did. How can I trust that you quoted her properly when you did not cite a reference for that quote, or even spell her name correctly?

You think it is important to mention Swain's race?

In that vein and following what you started, as Gottfredson, who is white and most likely of Germanic descent, is quoted thusly on this white supremacist website-- http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/LSG.htm "The results of a 1984 survey (Snyderman & Rothman, 1988) of experts on intelligence and mental testing"

So Swain is careless; and Snyderman & Rothman conducted a survey in 1984 and it took them four years to publish their findings. Which leaves me wondering-- Why exactly is Gottfredson placing so much emphasis, in 2003, [1] on a 19-year old push poll (as Ramdrake observes) when it is so easy and quick to do valid polls today?

Is she lazy? Does she not do original research? Or is it that she likes the claims made in the 19-year-old poll that have not been, and perhaps can not be replicated?

Basic to science is the ability to replicate findings. In 23 years, has no one replicated the poll finding by Snyderman & Rothman that the majority of psychologists concur with Jensen's claims that black people are inferior to whites intellectually? If not, why not?

Is it because Jensen's study consisted entirely of two groups of four 14 year olds, tested more than 47 years ago, and from that small sample, he makes generalizations about an entire race of people? [2]

Or is it because Snyderman & Rothman wanted to take "advantage of a push poll -- "an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters away) while avoiding responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll. They are risky for the same reason: if credible evidence emerges that the polls were ordered by a campaign, it would do serious damage to that campaign."

Finally you ask if Sternberg's publishing in Intelligence causes that publication to be not a hotbed of white supremacist thinking? The short answer is No. (Sternberg was taking the fight to white supremacist turf.) Read William Tucker's The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund and The Science and Politics of Racial Research and then let's chat, not here, because this is not a soap box but on your talk page. Skywriter 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent)If you re-read Swain's statement properly, you will see that she only reports that the survey exists and what it claims; she doesn't say she endorses any of what it says; likewise I am not pretending the survey doesn't exist; I'm just pointing out it doesn't have a whole lot of credibility. And the argument that the survey represents "expert opinion" fairly thus constructed is an argument by authority which doesn't hold. A proper survey would have selected a random sample of scientists in the relevant field, not cherry-picked its respondents, and would have avoided to roll partly genetic and partly environmental together with the totally genetic option. What if the scientist surveyed thought the source of the gap was very predominantly environmental, but couldn't rule out a genetic contribution? He or she would have been rolled with the voices on "partly or totally genetic". That's the fatal flaw of this survey, and probably why nobody attempted to replicate it since.

If you want a proper, representative opinion, take the statement of the APA (10,000-ish strong membership):

It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis. (emphasis mine)--Ramdrake 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why nobody has attempted to replicate Snyderman's study?

The APA has been criticised for examining the partially genetic hypothesis inadequately. In the statement only two studies have been cited:

1) A study of the children of African-American servicemen and White German women.

This was a flawed study for at least 3 reasons.

"First, the children were still very young when tested. One third

of the children were between 5 and 10 years of age, and two thirds were between

10 and 13 years. As discussed in Section 5 (see Figure 3), behavior genetic studies

show that while family socialization effects on IQ are often strong before puberty,

after puberty they dwindle, sometimes to zero. Second, 20% to 25% of the

“Black” fathers were not African Americans but French North Africans (i.e.,

largely Caucasian or “Whites” as we have defined the terms here). Third, there

[b]was rigorous selection based on IQ score in the U.S. Army at the time[/b], with a

[b]rejection rate for Blacks on the preinduction Army General Classification Test of

about 30%, compared with 3% for Whites[/b] (see Davenport, 1946, Tables I and III)"

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

Furthermore, the German women likely did have preferences to date officers or otherwise exceptional men who were able to overcome the social stigma related to the country's National Socialist past. German women who dated even White Americans were commonly called Ami-Whores and their heads were shaved. And do you believe in the controversial concept of hybrid vigor which may be a part of the explanation if existent? At least in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study mulattoes were found to a have a higher intelligence than the mean between Blacks and Whites.

2) A study examining White admixture and IQ in African-Americans on the basis of blood groups.

The method is outdated in examining admixture. For instance, the blood groups of groups German Jews match Germans and the blood groups of Polish Jews match Poles. Yet the result of a genetic study by Arnaz-Villena is that Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical.

While blood groups can be useful in examining admixture in such groups as Peruvian Indians (100% of them belong to the blood type O) they are not very useful in the case of Black and White Americans because of the small differences in their case.

Cf. http://www.bloodbook.com/world-abo.html

I also remind you that APA is an organization of psychologists, not psychometricians who are the relevant experts in the field of IQ testing. Thus, the Snyderman study randomly targeted the relevant experts (psychometricians) and there was no bias. This may also explain the difference between APA's statement and the prevailing scientific consensus.

Also, there is evidence that APA's statement does not reflect the actual opinions of the signatories. For instance, Bouchard thinks that genetic differences affect the IQ gap between Blacks and Whites.

You ask why another study has not been made. The probable answer is that hereditarians don't see another study as necessary because their point has already been made. The ball is with the environmentalists who seem reluctant to replicate the study although they would have to opportunity to correct some of the flaws it allegedly has. Is it because they are afraid of the results or are they so marginalized that they lack resources? The environmentalist view in this question is a minority-opinion scientific theory similar to the multiregional hypothesis.

MoritzB 07:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Request

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/Saint Maurice, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

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/Saint Maurice. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 12:19, 4 August 2007 (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.

note this

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Zen-master

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Afrocentrism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. --Strothra 13:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You did violate the 3RR on this page. Sterile edit warring inhibits useful work on the article and is not acceptable. Further edit warring, whether or not it technically violates the 3RR, may result in a block. Please be careful and stay cool in this dispute. Regards, Christopher Parham (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also on Race and intelligence. Please read WP:3RR. It includes "edits in several steps". - Jeeny ^Talk 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ramdrake

The IP who reverted to Ramdrake's version is probably ramdrake. Similar edit history and it's from Quebec as well. [3]. If he violated the 3RR rule, report it...KarenAER 21:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You may want to open a sock puppetry case too. User:Jeeny and User:Ramdrake have very similar edit histories. They edit on similar times. They have very similar positions. Not to mention, when Jeeny retired, Ramdrake retired too and then "they" returned together again. KarenAER 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We have the same (real life) first name too. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 22:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you forgot we also share the same continent. ;^)--Ramdrake 22:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I was ready to add that but you beat me to it. :) Oh, and we also share initials. I'm J.G., so is Ramdrake. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How fascinating. You share the same ignorancy about Europe and Turkey too. Yay! KarenAER 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not from Europe, thus not from Turkey either.--Ramdrake 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My grandparents were from Europe. But, I have turkey for Thanksgiving. :p - Jeeny ^Talk 02:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Taharqa may be User:Muntuwandi. KarenAER 23:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER writes: User:Taharqa may be User:Muntuwandi

LMAO!!! If you say so Karen..

And MoritzB, you were pretty much owned here[4], as I have responded to your fallacious arguments in the thread concerning Quantum Physics and "psychoenergetics". 1. Quatum physics wasn't even brought up. 2. He cited his claims. and 3. That was a fallacy of composition even if you did have a point, arguing that what is true of a part is true of the whole.

Just a summary of why you have no idea what you're talking and no answers to what was presented. I have no idea why I waste my time though and need to really consider why I waste my time debating the obvious with you and your sock puppets.Taharqa 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake's checkuser was denied so you can directly report him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR KarenAER 02:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

^They're not going to block him since the page is protected. You should really stop instigating in trying to help Moritz here push his Eurocentric agenda all over wikipedia, with his sock puppets..Taharqa 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eugenics. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. ornis (t) 15:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Jackson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Realist2 17:43, 27 August 2007

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Abortion for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:10, 27 August 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 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

You are NOT helping. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do NOT accuse me of Wikistalking. I've been editing these articles since I've been registered. Stop stop the false accusations. You should know better than this, but your childish accusations, and reports are disruptive. You report people as sockpuppets, 3RR, and so on, of those who do not support your views. Which are, IMO, racist, and I will continue to stop this sort of thing on Wikipedia. There are other avenues to "white-wash" history and truth you know. - Jeeny ^Talk 07:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you characterize Cavalli-Sforza's views as racist?

MoritzB 07:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are. Perhaps you get your information muddied by site such as this - Jeeny ^Talk 07:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I know Steve very well. I have even donated money to him.

MoritzB 07:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize

I'm sorry. I erroneously based my assumptions on edit history with you, while ignoring the facts. I was wrong. Please accept my apology. I will be more vigilant in reading the sources you provide, rather than blindly assuming you are pushing an agenda. Again, I apologize. Peace. - Jeeny ^Talk 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem.

MoritzB 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Race and genetics

Hi, just wanted to point out that there is no point in having this edit war with Muntuwandi on this issue. You are not actually contradicting each other. All populations outside of Africa are more closely related to each other than they are to Africans under ROA, the African populations non African people are most closely related to are probably East African populations. On the other hand it is perfectly acceptable to say that of the non-African groups, Europeans may well be the closest to Africans. These are no incompatible concepts. Alun 07:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Alun 08:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MoritzB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no evidence produced of edit warring. Lists of diffs or links to relevant warnings have not been provided. There is no report in [5]. I have been very careful not to violate the 3RR. If I broke it it was a mistake made in good faith I am ready to correct (reverting my last edit). Also, the latest edits I made to the article white people KillerChihuahua mentioned reflected consensus on talk page. No warning was given of a violation of WP:3RR there. Thus, I assume that this block was a mistake made by KillerChihuahua.

Decline reason:

the block and its length appear justified in the circumstances. Edit warring is disruptive and 3RR is not a license to 3 revisions daily. — Carlossuarez46 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MoritzB 14:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring does not require 3RR, and insofar as a warning, your talk page history is full of them. That your last spate of edits was agreed to and has not been reverted is due more to my slowness with blocking, not your devotion to consensus building. NOTE to reviewing admin: if this is at all unclear let me know so we can discuss, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

However, at the time I received those "warnings" I had made only three reverts, not four. Thus, I never broke the 3RR.

For example, see the diffs in Michael Jackson: [6], [7] , [8]

(The dispute about the inclusing of his mugshot)

As for my devotion to consensus building see the history of the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_people&action=history

Obviously, the false reports on my talk page misled you.

MoritzB 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, it was taking the time to dig through all your contribs that took so long - I didn't go by the "false reports". Please note: 3RR is not a license to edit war, which you seem to think. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

However, I never broke the rule. The edits were made in good faith to improve articles based on consensus. Just because it took many "steps" is not a reason to block as per WP:3RR as I could have made those changes in a single edit. Would you kindly produce a list of diffs if I allegedly broke the 3RR in "white people" and "many other articles?"

MoritzB 06:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the 3RR rule. It has to do with the principle against edit warring. 3RR is not an allowance to make three reverts a day, every day, until you get your way; there are other methods to try to get the article how you want it than childishly edit warring. If this continues, I can assure you an arbitration will be in your future, and I have no doubt you will be blocked for future edit warring, especially if you resume the moment your ban is up. These aren't 3RR blocks, they are disruption blocks. Really, it's either that, or protecting the page, probably on the version you dislike, so make your choice - if you want the page a certain way, go through one of the many other avenues open to you, rather than continuing a futile fight thinking your rule-lawyering will save you from a block. --Golbez 08:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

However, no evidence was actually provided that I was edit warring in any manner. 90% of my edits are discussion on talk page aimed to form a consensus.

MoritzB 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't block you - I was simply informing you that 3RR is a barrier, not a right. --Golbez 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I know that now.

MoritzB 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Get over it, you were edit waring on the michael jackson page, I bare witness to it, just serve your punishment and move on, hopefully you will learn, talking of consensus (something you fail to follow) the consensus is you have done wrong. Oh by the way its michael Jacksons birthday today, im sure your delighted to learn MoritzB, It dont matter if your blak or white!!! He He. Seriously though bad boy, behave your self. Yours with enlightenment Realist2 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't spam my talk page. Thanks.

MoritzB 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You come out with things like that all the time, cant you face that facts that you might actually be in the wrong? Realist2 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please improve your spelling, thanks.

MoritzB 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh clever insult, actually english is not my first language im an interperter(c my user page). My first language is spanish, you are very ignorant Moritzb B you user latin words here and there but it doesnt make you clever, sorry my english isn`t up to your standard at least I got off my ass and bothered to learn something else, I wont laugh at your ability to speak spanish, Im not doing to sink that low. Please improve your sense of humour, thanks. Realist2 10:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Laplanders

Since when have the Sami people been non-european? You removed the Laplander from the gallery of European people to make the rows of equal length: was this a convenient piece of ethnic cleansing on your part? --Mathsci 10:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed a Turk, a Chechen and a Georgian. Then I removed the Sami woman so that there are no incomplete rows in the gallery. I have no problem if she is added back with three new European people.

MoritzB 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The sami woman is back, along with the other 3 people you removed. BTW FYI galleries don't need to have four images in each line: I suspect you might already be aware of this. I would like a sami surrounded by reindeer, like here (alas not a free image). There are other ancient isolated communities it would be nice to represent when the article is split in two, as I hope it is. --Mathsci 15:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again stop spreading your fringe POV

This recent binge of yours, to say that pedophiles are linked to homosexuals and vise versa. That's like saying white men are kidnappers and rapists. Since most kidnappers and rapists are indeed white men. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You may have good sources but your views are fringe and therefore notability. Actually it just looks like gay bashing to me, SqueakBox 21:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it is gay bashing, just as he has with the race articles. I can find a reliable source that states pedophiles are mostly WHITE men. How would that set with you? That's how ridiculous your fringe POV is. Does that mean that most white men are pedophiles? Of course not. Sheesh. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't under the impression that it was gay bashing... it didn't seem like he was saying "All gays are pedophiles", but more "A higher than normal number of pedophiles are gay." That's not really a lie, is it? There are a lot more pedophiles attracted to males than there are normal men who are... at least, I'm pretty sure that's how it goes. Kinda hate to step into what seems to be a bit of a contentious issue, just thought I'd throw my two cents in there. Lychosis ^T/C 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

He added it to the Homosexuality artcle too. Why not add it to the White people article? Most pedophiles are white men. It wouldn't really be a lie, now would it? - Jeeny ^Talk 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe, even if that were to be said, it would be "Most pedophiles in Europe and North America are white men." As, I'm sure there are pedophiles elsewhere in the world, in developing countries and such who are never heard of in other parts of the world. Also... if your only problem is that it was added to the Homosexuality article, why remove it from both? I'd like to add, as well, that the statistics that he added are a bit misleading, anyway. Seeing as the number of men attracted to children would be drastically lower than thsoe not attracted to children, a smaller number of cases could easily unbalance the numbers. I don't mean to be uncivil or anything, but it just seems to me like you're drawing a faulty connection. It's like debating the sentence "The percent of lesbians who are feminists is higher than the percent of straight women who are feminists". Due to the lower number of lesbians than straight women, that sentence could be terribly misleading. One could take it as "All lesbians are feminists", or "All feminists are lesbians", or "Feminists are more likely to be lesbians", or "Lesbians are more likely to be feminists". It just kinda seems like a bad thing to argue, because lots of people are going to read it different ways. I, personally, see nothing wrong with adding what he added to both articles, but you obviously do. Soon enough, someone's going to look at it, and read something completely different than what either of us saw in it. And... sorry for the long-winded reply, I just had a bit to say about that. This just seems to be like something that we should just kinda wait and see what happens, or ask someone else for a comment on it, in a neutral way. Not, "Look at this guy's POV-pushing.", but "Could you take a look at this information that this guy is trying to insert, and give us an opinion on it?". And, sorry if I am coming across as a bit... I dunno... I'm just tryin' to look at what's going on, and maybe try to cool the situation down a bit. :3 Lychosis ^T/C 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't canvass to get support for your argument [9] [10] [11]. There are already too many people losing their time arguing on these talk pages. An extra three won't help in finding a solution. Pascal.Tesson 03:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I simply notified some editors who usually make good comments. I don't know what they think of homosexuality.MoritzB 03:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And by referring to your opponents as NAMBLA members, where you also hoping that they would come to the discussion with an open mind? Just stop. It's not the first time you try to drum up support in your disputes [12] [13]. Actually, your history of User talk contributions [14] is quite depressing and hardly indicates a willingness to work productively. Pascal.Tesson 03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the rollback was completely accidental. Sorry about that. Pascal.Tesson 03:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that guideline. I was very frustrated because an individual constantly follows all my edits and reverts them without an explanation.MoritzB 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on now, are you really saying that it never occurred to you that it would be frowned upon to do that? Incidentally, your recent edits are also being discussed currently at ANI. Pascal.Tesson 04:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, morally. People who disagree with me are constantly doing so. It sucks. Do you want to see examples?

BTW, thanks for notifying me of the ANI discussion. Taharqa did not bother to notify me. Is there some guideline against that?MoritzB 04:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been better for him/her to notify you. In any case, you're notified now. Pascal.Tesson 06:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Homosexuality

I note that you are revert-warring on the above articles and are now coming perilously close to violating the three-revert rule. Please discuss your differences on the relevant talk pages as your next revert is probably going to result in your editing being blocked for a time - Alison ☺ 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK.MoritzB 06:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to also make it clear that further disruptive edit warring on these or any other articles will result in your account being blocked. You have caused enough headaches as it is. Pascal.Tesson 06:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing and using talkpage as a forum

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.

Your comments on Talk:White people about critical theory being marxist or neo-marxist is totally irrelevant to the subject of the article. These are reliable sources, your attempts to debate the nature of critical theory is treating the talk page both as a forum and as a soapbox. This is a level 2 warning. It takes into account that this behaviour has been protracted. As I said on the talk page please review wikipedia's five pillars. Also please study WP:TALK. Talk pages have one function and one function only: improving articles. Not arguing against properly sourced, academic material. Core to the policy is being positive; staying objective, dealing with facts and making proposals. Obstructing this process is tendentious and disruptive - this is a blockable offence. You have seen editors who were trolling at Talk:White people blocked indefinitely please review the reasons for their blocks.--Cailil ^talk 21:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE prevents the use of Marxist sources in articles which are not related to Marxism. An editor wanted to construct the article almost exclusively based on Marxist sources. MoritzB 12:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The string "marx" appears nowhere in WP:UNDUE. Neither does "socialis" or "communis". -- Hoary 14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither does "National Socialist". Is Adolf Hitler's point of view appropriate in an article about 19th century Jewish history? MoritzB 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. What has that to do with a Marxist source? -- Hoary 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Extreme right-wing or left-wing sources aren't appropriate. MoritzB 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hitler is not known for having had any respect for facts or reasoning. This sets him apart from a great number of academic Marxists. Below, you mention Noel Ignatiev, a name that's new to me. I read that he was granted a doctorate for his dissertation and given academic positions, all by respected universities. While neither is proof that he's free of demagoguery elsewhere, the doctorate and positions were awarded for academic work. -- Hoary 01:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked.

MoritzB you are continuing to soapbox please stop. This talk page is governed by same rules as article talk pages - see WP:TALK. Characterizing the academic studies cited on Talk:white people as extreme left-wing sources is both factually inaccurate and soapboxing. Please take note that that wikipedia is not a battleground--Cailil ^talk

We were talking about a study by a Marxist scholar, Noel Ignatiev. He is a self-identified Communist. Thus, I was factually correct. MoritzB 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No you were talking "about the list Slrubenstein posted" (see Talk:White_people#No_Neo-Marxist_POV_is_needed), these are your words. I followed that conversation carefully and you only mentioned your issue with the above writer on August 31st. Two days after your opening remarks about neo-marxism. Please take note of wikipedia's policies MoritzB. If you continue to soapbox here or on any other talk page you will receive a level 4, final warning. If you stop soapboxing and acquaint yourself with policy on WP you could become a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia. But as stated twice already, soapboxing and other disruptive use of wikipedia's talk-pages is considered disruptive and is a blockable offense--Cailil ^talk 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Caucasianskull.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Caucasianskull.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Negroidskull.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Negroidskull.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

• Please don't delete material without consensus.

If you think that is a good policy then I recommend you follow it yourself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin El_C later clarified that "additions require a consensus." MoritzB 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Everything on Wikipedia proceeds by consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing again

Hello. I have reverted two of your latest additions. I find it ironic that a couple of sections above you were vehemently arguing against citing Noel Ignatiev as a reliable source given that he's a marxist historian, yet you don't find it problematic to cite Robert Gayre (well remembered for saying that blacks are feckless) to explain that Africans had nothing to do with the building of Great Zimbabwe. This sort of point-of-view pushing has led you to start edit wars on White people, Pedophilia, Michael Jackson, and so on. This has got to stop. Pascal.Tesson 04:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Although you might not like Gayre's political views his work is mainstream and very influential. It should be mentioned at least in the historiography section "European views". I was against citing Ignatiev because his views of the subject were not mainstream. However, if you have nothing against Ignatiev why not cite Gayre?MoritzB 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. I never advocated the use of Ignatiev as a reliable source. I just noticed that you felt marxist historians needed to be discarded, pretty much no matter what. On the other hand, here you are arguing that Gayre's work on Zimbabwe is influential. Let's take a cursory look at the Google search "Robert Gayre" + Zimbabwe [15]. First hit is his book. Second is a white supremacist website. The next link relevant to his work on Zimbabwe is Stormfront. The next one [16] I'm sure you'll like is an article explaining that Gayre's stated objective in researching Zimbabwe was "to prove ... that there occurred a drift of White Genes from the Mediterranean down both the West and East coasts of Africa," thus accounting for "allegedly native African high civilizations at Zimbabwe and elsewhere." Perhaps you prefer to look at Google Scholar, with the generous search parameters Gayre + Zimbabwe. We get at most 10 relevant hits in all [17], hardly typical of very influential work. The first three ridicule Gayre's work on the subject and describe it as politically motivated, one more is simply citing the first paper on that topic. The next one I checked cites Gayre's work as an example of "racist theories about Zimbabwe". This is not about not liking Gayre's political views. It's about not citing a part of his work which has been thorougly and consistently discredited. Pascal.Tesson 05:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Zimbabwe is a rather obscure topic. The other (racist) scholars cited do not generate much hits either. Also, I provided to links to three 21st century books which defend Gayre's view. Please address them.MoritzB 05:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

However obscure the topic may be, you'll find convincing evidence that, for instance, the work of Ndoro Webber is much more cited. Your claim that Gayre's theories are mainstream and that his book is authoritative is unsupported by the most casual examination of facts. You cite three books about the history of the Lemba, the first of which says Gayre is an "obvious racist". DNA and Tradition: The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews does not mention Gayre's name [18]. Pascal.Tesson 06:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Gayre was a "racist" like most other Britons of his generation. Some other "racist" scholars are also cited. The point is that the books endorse his conclusions. MoritzB 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No they don't. They may endorse the link between the Lemba and Jews but that's completely irrelevant to the diff you made to Great Zimbabwe. And Gayre was no ordinary racist: he was a militant racist and one whose work was thorougly criticized as being tainted by that racism. Pascal.Tesson 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Parfitt argues that the immigrant ancestors of the Lemba built the Great Zimbabwe.MoritzB 06:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Parfitt's work is admittedly speculative in that respect and he's not citing Gayre as an authority on that subject. It's pretty clear that this position does not have the support you claim among archeologists. Pascal.Tesson 14:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then please include the references which refute Gayre to the article. Besides, Gayre's work had an authoritarive status in Rhodesia which makes it relevant regardless of its current acceptance. MoritzB 01:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV? You glorify Lynn by introducing his study, but you delete any criticism of him. That is POV. There are many criticism, for being cited many times in the Bell Curve. I supplied refs of those criticism. Which is another POV, making it NPOV. Sheesh. He is much like Rushton. And you know it. Please stop your POV pushing. - Jeeny ^Talk 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Final warning

This is your last warning.
If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You have fair warning that if you continue to use wikipedia as a soapbox you will be blocked. Your comments on WP:ANI[19] have continued to disrupt wikipedia by using talk pages like a forum. This is your final warning. Please take heed of it. This is your chance to reassess your behaviour in light of wikipedia's five pillars and become a better wikipedian.
As I have stated above you are characterizing a whole academic field as 'neo-marxist' or 'marxist' or 'left wing' not just the cherry picked authors such as Noel Ignatiev. Characterizing the whole discipline of critical theory as a neo-marxism is factually inaccurate.
You have a long history of using wikipedia like a forum and have not addressed this behaviour, please read over WP:TALK, WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#FORUM--Cailil ^talk 15:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

On the WP page on Cyril Burt you seem to be continuing to push a minority point of view which has no academic support. This seems to be repeated on other WP pages. Your support of Richard Lynn for example does not address the central point, supported in several high level academic journals, that his use of statistics is fundamentally flawed (to the point of intellectual dishonesty) and invalidates most of his arguments. Yet you continue to support these flawed "scientists". Why? Might you in fact have extreme political beliefs and prejudices which make you determined to sabotage a respectable encyclopedia? Mathsci 19:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. W.D. Hamilton was a very respected, mainstream scientist and he said that Burt did not commit fraud. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyril_Burt#W.D._Hamilton_asserts_that_Burt_did_not_commit_fraud

20:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One eccentric supporting a discredited scientist proves nothing at all, as you well know. For example it seems that the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson goes out of his way to advocate parts of fringe science that have been dismissed by the scientific community. Are you aware of any qualified statisticians who have supported Lynn's unconventional and apparently unprofessional statistical methods? You apparently, for some unfathomable reason, think that he's the bee's knees. --Mathsci 19:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard Herrnstein, for example.MoritzB 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So not a statistician then, in fact a fully paid up member of the fascist tendency in science. This is hardly mainstream is it? Alun 07:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)