User talk:Futurebird/Archive 8

Lynching in the United States

You may have an interest in this. I'm working on the article trying to provide more context and get it out of simply the detailed recounting of horrific facts. I've rewritten the opening paragraphs and am gradually editing other portions of the article. Have added to the Talk page and will be adding cites from historians and sociologists that show its relation to other forms of traditional "community justice" (including "necklacing" in South Africa and less fatal forms). Thanks for the Barnstar award.--Parkwells 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

R&I at Moonridden

Hi. I suggested an arbitrary deadline for this afternoon at the project. After that point, I suggested removing the strikeouts, bolds, and notes. Do you want to do the deed? I can do it, but am happy to allow you the honors. Then I thought we could read the result and discuss fine tuning. I'll be gone over the weekend for a realaxing three days on my boat in Saucalito, with no phone, fax or computer, but lots of beer. Do you wan to pick the next section(s) and start the process again? --Kevin Murray 15:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, FB. Just looked at your latest batch of changes (after getting rid of the first set of bolding and strikeouts), and I happen to disagree with several of them. Can we discuss them on the talk page, as I'd rather discuss things with you rather than start reverting. I'll leave a more complete discussion of the points I disagree with on the talk page. Cordially, Ramdrake 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

African Diaspora wikiproject!

Thanks for your welcoming note, and it is wonderful to know where to find kindred voices. I've taught classes on African American newspapers and have long wanted to put up a page on Freedomways so I may do that, time-permitting.Skywriter 23:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hullo

I don't know the best future for the article "Race and intelligence". I do know that all of us humans are, well human. I know quite a lot about genetics, enough to know that "black" and "white" are biologically meaningless when it comes to "race". And I know a bit about ethnicity. I hate racism, of all sorts. The more time I spend on Wikipedia, the more I realise that I know a lot less than I thought I did. If I sound arrogant sometimes, then I'm sorry. I know that some academics really do try to promote the IQ test scores as due to biological differences that have been under evolutionary pressure, but I do not know how mainstream their work is in regards to the academic debate on the issue. If these people are academically marginal, then I'm not sure that they are marginal in the non-academic world, the fact that the "Bell Curve" was a bestseller shows that these ideas seem to have some sort of currency to non-experts. How they should be presented in the article is another matter. Possible as fringe theories? Alun 11:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message, it was interesting and I learned something, which is one of the great pleasures about contributing here. I'll keep an eye on the Race and intelligence stuff and contribute when I think I have something to offer, but I'm not sure how much I can contribute. Please feel free to contact me if you think I can help in any way. Cheers. Alun 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

R&I at MRG

Hi. How did it go this weekend at the Moonriddengirl sandbox? We ended up not going on our little trip because of the oil spill in SF Bay, but had a fun weekend on the boat in harbor and helping a bit with the oil cleanup and saving some birds. I'm may be a bit busy this week helping with a project to save oil-harmed seabirds, but will certainly be somwhat available for WP. --Kevin Murray 02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Your recent peer review request (Redlining) is incomplete. If you wish to get feedback you should complete the nomination procedure (see WP:PR). Thanks. DrKiernan 11:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking

... about pursuing a matter against DBachmann[1]. If you check his talk page page[2] and the talk pages of Afrocentrism, I think there's ample ammunition. This guy doesn't seem to give a damn about his conduct as an administrator. He's totally unapologetic/unrepentant. You'll note that below my entry on his talk page, even Wikidudeman wrote him and requested that he stop edit warring at that article and at Race of ancient Egyptians. (Funny. While checking for the precise name of the article from WDM's post, I came across an ANI against dBachmann initiated by another editor farther down the page. Bachmann also engaged in edit warring some time ago, if I recall, when I was involved in the article on the Great Sphinx of Giza. This guy seems to have a rabid gerbil up his a** when it comes to such topics, and he's clearly out of control.

What do you think? deeceevoice 12:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you missed this one. Which I have a feeling lead to your block of the article, but Dbackman is allowed to troll these types of articles in his merry way. Tsk tsk. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Check my talk page

Banned indefinitely from editing Afrocentrism and the article talk page.[3] You can bet someone put him up to it. No one as yet has pointed out to me any example of POV pushing on my part at Afrocentrism. This is absolute bullsh*t. lol And you wonder why I don't have any faith in the project.deeceevoice 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Look no further than here: [4].--Ramdrake 21:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi is the same user who called my requests for civility from dbm "process wankery" (diff) Hardly an "uninvolved admin" futurebird 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the blocking admin is not neutral. He even says how much "good" Dab has done for him with his area of interest. Like I said, there is a cabal, as much as they deny one exist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this true. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 19:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Draft

Send me an e-mail at jgoyer@ca.ibm.com so I can send you an invite to your e-amil addy. That's how it works. If the RfC works, we can heve DVC's case revisited afterwards, I think.--Ramdrake 00:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just check your e-mail whenever you have time. Thanks!--Ramdrake 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer the question you've been asking of DB and Moreschi, look no further than here: [5].--Ramdrake 04:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the article was mentioned explicitly. Okay. That answers my question. futurebird 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: so unfair

No you are not overreacting. I understand why you feel that way. I'm angry too. Very angry...and because I'm so angry I think I have to step back, it takes me away from contributing to the "encyclopedia". I understand how you feel very well. I don't have an answer for you though. I'm too pessimistic right now about this "project" and see a lot of what is "wrong", and little of what is "right". I've become very disillusioned. I think this place is going in the wrong direction. The policy makers, and especially many of the enforcers need to be replaced. I don't know. It's like a little country that is destined to fall because of no checks and balances. It's more like a fascist regime, than anything else. It is very difficult to detach my emotions when under such dictatorship. Therefore I can not concentrate on the "encyclopedia" aspect of it, but the politics. There is a cabal, dear FB, and it is very frustrating and stifles productivity, reason and good will. :/ I don't know what to do or what else to say. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 21:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC procedure

Hello, an RfC procedure has been opened regarding the behavior of User:Dbachmann, here: [6]. Please feel free to contribute if you wish.---- Ramdrake (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentricity

Thanks so much for your comments (on my comments). I admire you for tackling such a huge and complex subject. Will keep looking at the material and sources, and try to help.---- Parkwells (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sis

No time to get into it all. But just thanks. :) deeceevoice (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC dab

Thanks for asking. I added my endorsement. I had taken a break when much of that was going on, but was surprised at his tone and words - way out of line. Also, thanks for your efforts to notice people's contributions - everyone likes that! --Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

D'Souza

I'm usually on the exact same page as you are as far as edits/content goes, but your recent inclusion on afrocentrism is problematic in my view, and I reverted a bit of it due to original research and problems with reliability and verification.

1) It was stated that D'Souza IS a major proponent of the Eurocentric view of African history, and the source which was provided was from Clyde Ahmad Winters. I have that paper and it can be accessed on geocities. Clyde Winters, as a noted history extremist/militant afrocentric, should not be given such weight to make these types of positive assertions against people, as it violates wikipedia reliable sources. He didn't even give any citations on what validates this assertions, but rather just makes the claim, which can be seen as slander if not true. While I agree with the statement (I truly do), I'm sure people would complain about it anyways, so I gave the claim attribution ("some claim that"...etc.).

2) Directly proceeding, the claim was made that "D'Souza opposes the ideas of multiculturalism and Afrocentricity questioning the notion that all world cultures are equal". Per relevance and to avoid original research, I removed this statement. The source used was a book review[7], that doesn't even address Afrocentrism and it seems that this out-of-context argument attributed to him, is hastily being applied to afrocentrism, even though the review gives no reference to that, which would have made it notable for mention in a criticism section on afrocentrism.

3) Finally, another problematic statement was attributed to Clyde Winters, in which it was claimed that D'Souza argues that Africans were trapped below the Sahara, and in effect, remained in the stone age. Maybe if you can quote that? Winters' paper can again, be accessed here[8], and while he does make mention of what was already covered, he makes no mention of this Stone Age claim (as far as I can see, maybe I skimmed over it), nor does he attribute such a comment to D'Souza here. Most importantly, he doesn't cite him or have any footnotes. D'Souza is not in the bibliography nor is Clyde a reliable secondary source in his own right. Another problem that I have with that is it being seen as a critique against afrocentrism or letting it stand alone with out rebuttal, since it obviously isn't true and can easily be countered by numerous mainstream sources.Taharqa (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you changes make a lot of sense. I got all excited when I found out D'Souza was involved in this debate and patched those sentences together too quickly. Thanks for fixing it. futurebird (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ableism

You recently tagged a sentence in Ableism as needing a citation. I'm not sure which part of the sentence you want supported. The fact ableism is actually used more than abilitism, or the fact that abilitism has a more direct connection to Latin grammar than ableism? I don't object to the tag in any sense, but I don't want to be guessing which one is your real question. (I'll watch this page for any replies.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

African diaspora article

Hi Futurebird, Just letting you know that I have moved the genetics stuff we discussed before to the discussion page of the African diaspora article. When the African diaspora project members get a chance to go over the article in the same wonderfully methodical, cooperative, professional and authoritative way you have been dealing with some other articles within a shared sphere of interest lately (just noticed--much impressed!), stuff now moved can always be reinserted again, if need be. Best, Afv2006 (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC) (PS. Congrats on the admission letter. You go!)

Joined

I just joined the project, thanks for the invite. Blackjays1 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Mankind Quarterly

I would appreciate your reading this: http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/ and to consider reverting the changes you made to the MQ page. I know some of these people, they are not as you depict them

There are some great lines in the Slate article. "If you think it's safe to guess that a white job applicant is smarter than a black one, consider this: The most important job in the world is president of the United States. Over the last seven years, the most important judgment relevant to that job was whether to authorize, endorse, or oppose the use of force in Iraq. Among the dozen viable candidates who have applied for the job, one is black. Guess which one got it right?"

As a scientist in the making, I think you should be able to see why the truth is important. Another line:

"3. Whitey does not come out on top. If you came here looking for material for your Aryan supremacy Web site, sorry. Stratifying the world by racial IQ will leave your volk in the dust."

The article ends:

"Don't tell me it isn't genetic. Don't tell me it's God's will. And in the age of genetic modification, don't tell me we can't do anything about it.

"No, we are not created equal. But we are endowed by our Creator with the ideal of equality, and the intelligence to finish the job."

Scientists, particularly mathematicians, are bringing about the Singularity. If the consequences of this are of interest to you, I can point you to interesting places. Keith Henson (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC) hkhenson@rogers.com

Another pointer. You might really appreciate the insights of Judith Rich Harris. They bare directly on many of the things you care about (if I read your interests correctly from your edits). [9]

Keith Henson (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey.

Heya, birdie. :) I'm back from the Midwest and am slammed with deadlines at the moment, but I'll get back at you about African American neighborhoods as soon as I have a moment -- probably not 'til near the end of the week, though. :/

I stopped by the RfC on me, and it's been archived -- but with nothing announced as an outcome. Still, it seems that I can still edit. Dunno know what that means. Just weird.... Did the pack back off? Am I still banned for a year? Am I still banned from editing Afrocentrism?

Who the hell knows?

I see the RfC on DBachmann is going swimmingly. That's at least one good thing that's come of all this silliness. It looks like the chickens are finally coming home to roost on that one. When I first read the flat-out, full-on charge of racism, I thought it a bit over the top. While I suspected racism based on Bachmann's attitudes in evidence in article talk spaces and elsewhere, I never thought I'd see it on such full display as in the diffs provided by user Bakaman. Just check this one out.[10] Just amazing what some people will commit to print! After that and some of the other diffs Bakaman provided, I just flat-out recommended the man be de-sysopped. It's good Bachmann finally has been exposed for what he is, but it's still pretty nasty business -- and rather sad. deeceevoice (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

List of churches in Omaha

Hey Futurebird, thanks for bringing this to my attention. As it stands, I agree with the nom, because there is no encyclopedic value to the list. I ran into this issue early with a list of synagogues in Omaha, where I smashed the AfD by blowing out the article with all the information I could find about Omaha's Jewish community. I will work on saving this AfD today; if I don't, then I will write a mega-article with crazy amounts of info at a later point. • Freechild'sup? 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the page again, and see if you have anything to add. In the meantime, I added a few things to African American neighborhood, but there's a ways to go there. I would challenge your assertion about the first such neighborhoods, per se, and someone else in WP will surely challenge the American-centric perspective of the article. There were communities of free blacks in cities throughout the North, particularly along the Mason-Dixon line, from before the US revolution. Also, something in the city should define the nature of AA neighborhoods, particularly in the sense of the phenomenon, mentality, morality and community they represent. So yeah, there's some work to do - but you've definitely got a great start, and it is a much needed article. • Freechild'sup? 02:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Stuff

First and more important, I just happened by Jeeny's page, and it looks like all hell has broken loose? What the hell? And what's this about her having five months to live? Have you been in touch with her? It looks like she's having a melt-down. I think this crap with me started it. She's understandably really disillusioned with the project, but it doesn't seem she's taking it very well. (Me, I'm just jaded/cynical. I just roll with it.) But I'm a bit concerned. If you can clue me in or have any suggestions how I might be of any assistance, please met me know. I've e-mailed her.

Second -- hell, I forgot what the second thing was. It doesn't matter.

Oh, yeah. Looks like the lynch mob has packed up and gone home. I'm editing freely again. I'll get around to Afrocentrism when I have time. I haven't been back there for some time now, but I can imagine. The key is to broaden the definition, get beyond the narrow history thing -- as I mentioned before -- and examine it as a general paradigm. Once you establish that it is a paradigm that is used across disciplines, by government agencies, institutions, professionals across disciplines, etc., etc., etc., then those who would trash it as a concept have nowhere to go with that trash. They can write in their little barbs on a section treating some so-called "Afrocentrist" historians, etc., but Afrocentricity is stone legit. And there's nothing they can say or do about that. deeceevoice (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oooh look it's nature

Why don't you ever post anything at wetcanvas anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.91.94 (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in grad school studying math and not painting as much. Don't worry I'll be back in the summer. futurebird (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Sorry for all the trouble you're getting on the RfC, and, yes, I know that I've been responsible for some of it personally. For what it's worth, I took the "warlord" name in part because I recognize more than a little belligerence in myself at times. For what little it might be worth, I think it would probably work best, and have said as much elsewhere regarding the current RfA process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, that wikipedia would probably best benefit by having more than the one, solitary, existing "kind" of admin. I don't disagree that Dbachmann's comments are at times more than a little unpalatable, and can see how people might "expect more" from an admin. Having said that, I can also see how people who might be trying to might a "lonely battle against POV" (I hate the phrase, but it kinda seems the way he and some others think of him) might have use for the tools, and if they don't abuse them could be reasonably given them, as long as civility is the only policy they don't scrupulously follow. I've never seen anyone accuse Dbachmann of using the admin tools improperly. So, while I don't disagree with you that he is far from an ideal admin, for someone in his "niche" he might be one of the best possible people. And I think I'll withdraw from the RfC on dab for awhile. I do a lot of the assessing for the various projects I belong to, which also gets one in a position to be insulted a lot, and I've only got about, oh, a million unssessed articles to go. And my thanks for having yourself been unusually civil during the conversation. Like I said above and there, I can get a little "colorful" myself at times, and appreciate it when others can do things I can't always do myself. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

spam white list request

Just a heads up that your request for white listing is waiting on a response from you and may be archived soon with no action taken. -- SiobhanHansa 13:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Style note

Thank you for your edits to . I have a style note. Math notation should be in math tags, or otherwise html italic. So one should write <math>f(a)</math> instead of plain f(a). Just thought I'd let you know for the future. You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to do that. Thanks! Can I use latex? It looks like it's just normal latex, but I'm just a baby-grad student and I'm still learning many of these things. futurebird 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For now, I actually undid your addition. I think the exact discussion of f(z) does not belong in the intro, and the part about "...result has no counterpart in real analysis" was inserted before the discussion of the theorem was finished. Perhaps you can add the text in some other way without conflicting with the current flow, if possible? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Latex is fine. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

CEM

Unfortunately, though I can understand your concerns, it really isn't anyone's place to tell someone else how they will have to respond to various points anyone makes. Dbachmann said what he said, and, to an extent, his response was a reasonable one, saying he doesn't want to repeat himself. If other of the complaints were raised before, then he could reasonably say he wouldn't have to repeat himself regarding them either. It sounds to me that what you're asking for is an apology. I've already been involved in a couple of disputes where one of the other parties (not me, in this instance), was so clearly convinced he was right that it would be unreasonable to expect him to say that he was wrong. We can't demand people adjust their thinking to ours, and that's what demanding an apology would kind of be doing. In cases like that, the best that can be expected is a statement to the effect, "I acknowledge your points, and will try to refrain from excessive reaction in the future." But we can't demand someone acknowledge wrongdoing, particularly if it is clear that they don't think what they were doing was wrong. He has already more or less tacitly acknowledged going overboard a bit, once in a while, in phrasing, and I think that's about as much of a concession anyone's going to get out of him. You can disagree with me, or even consider me wrong, but that's more or less what's been indicated to me by more experienced editors regarding "discussions" I've had with other editors in the past. John Carter 16:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

John, thanks for you comments and your attempt to smooth things over. I agree with your intentions, but please try to understand that by smoothing things over you are also minimizing the issue. Sometimes that can be a good thing. But it's not like these are just matters of "personal taste" I don't feel welcome here or free to express myself per WP:SPADE because I think I would be banned for it if I did just like deeceevoice was banned. But, Dbachmann CAN express ideas in a frank way and not worry about being banned. That's unfair, and it's not just matter of personal taste, it has an impact on me every single time I interact with others on this site. futurebird 17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't think you're alone in that feeling. You aren't. Really, none of us are really allowed to say what we think if what we think isn't civil. User:MONGO, who has been desysoped, would acknowledge that too. Trust me, I made several comments to User:Bus stop that other editors told me were "out of line", and which might have potentially gotten me "disciplined", in response to his comments which you can see on the page where he was banned (I'm not going to link to it, though; trust me, though, they were bad enough for him to be reasonably banned), and I thought I was demonstrating comparative self-control regarding the comments I did make. And, in all honesty regarding Deeceevoice, the fact that his/her remarkable fondness for what some of us consider obscure slang didn't help matters, as those of us not familiar with that lingo can't tell if we're being cussed out, but think we might be. I've managed to avoid being blocked so far by trying to be as civil as possible. There's a policy out there, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which might be kind of relevant here. Basically, like content, editors get judged individually. I learned from the Bus stop fiasco that I can't say my mind in some cases, because I'll be blocked or banned if I do. Bus stop learned that too, although he did a bit later than me. In the event it happens in the future, I know to go to WP:AN/I and report what happens there, while I basically try to remain civil to the occasional idiots I run into, and that's about the only option I have at this point. If they don't do anything, then there are other avenues, but not all of them are going to work, and once in a while you even have to admit the idiots win. Am I happy with it? No, not by a long shot. But this place works on not being right, but being accurate and nonjudgemental, at least toward those with more experience. I can see you making a good admin in the future, and if you do then maybe you'll have the same sort of extra "punch" dab does now. Following that option might be the best way to proceed here. No, I don't like it either, but it looks to me like the best of a bunch of inadequate options. John Carter 17:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't feel welcome here or free to express myself per WP:SPADE because I think I would be banned for it if I did....But, Dbachmann CAN express ideas in a frank way and not worry about being banned.

Sorry to but in here, but I just read the above comment by Futurebird and felt I had to comment. I think she is spot on, some editors are allowed to get away with so much more than others with regards to civility and personal attacks. I've been "warned" for responding to extremely provocative language in a relatively measured way. Take a look at the way User:Jeeny was recently blocked for making "personal attacks" on a known racist troll and flamebaiter who has wikistalked her and left personally insulting messages on her talk page for over three months, and Jeeny was blocked!! Other editors display very aggressive and pointedly offensive behaviour and are allowed to continue. It's not just about status either (although status helps, somehow being an admin has developed into a sort of "aristocracy" even they are not supposed to be any different to other editors), I've been blocked once for 3rr (only once ever) when what I was trying to do was remove racist-pov pushing. Most admins don't bother to check the details of any given case, they just jump in and arbitrarily punish a user for "breach of policies" such as "incivility" or "3rr", when the user in question may actually be trying to promote the more important policies of NPOV, NOR, V or consensus. But essentially, to determine properly if NPOV, NOR or V are being breached the admin needs to actually do some investigation of the dispute, something few are ever prepared to do, whereas it often appears "clear cut" as to whether someone has breached CIVIL or not. Often the "obvious" breach of civility is in actual fact a small segment of a much longer dispute in which both parties have often been short with each other. I can't help but also feel that the same systemic biases exist on Wikipedia that also exist in the real world, by that I mean the sort of socially entrenched racism that most (usually) white people don't even see as racist. It'd be interesting for someone to do a statistical comparison of the block logs and blocking of white users compared to non-white users. I'll say now that I think users that are obviously of African descent are much more likely to get a block than users who are not for exactly the same sort of behaviour, and I reckon that if someone were to go through the millions of diffs that are relevant, they could absolutely prove it. No wonder Futurebird, who is one of the best and most constructive editors on Wikipedia, doesn't feel welcome here. There certainly is systemic racism here, and I don't mean to suggest that this is necessarily deliberate racism, but that sort of casual superiority is the most pernicious IMO. Sorry to go on a bit but I feel quite strongly about this. All the best. Alun 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should have been more clear about my above comment. I did not mean to level any specific accusations against any specific user regarding overt or covert racism. I did mean to say that some users are given more leeway than others, and I did mean to say that I think that Dbachmann has got away with a lot more incivility/edit warring and general pov-pushing than many other users would have got away with (including you and me, for example), but I think this is self evident from the diffs presented in his RfC. On the other hand my comments about the systemic bias against people of African descent on Wikipedia was certainly not directed at any specific user, indeed it was about a general bias in the composition and socio-cultural attitudes of Wikipedians as a group. I don't think that this sort of systemic racism is deliberate, and I don't think the groups who perpetrate it are even aware that they are doing something racist. It has more to do with subconscious stereotypes. On the other hand the effect is that many points of view that do not conform to the world view of the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians (ie that of the white middle income reasonably well educated man between the ages of 20-45) often get labelled as "fringe" or "pov-pushing", even though the overwhelming majority of people in the world don't actually belong to the dominant group on Wikipedia. I agree that the only way to counter this bias is for there to be more diversity in the community, especially among administrators, but I also think that for many people of colour the Wikipedia community may be a much more hostile place to be than many "white" Wikipedians would ever understand or admit. It's why we need to work hard to keep people like Deeceevoice, someone who constantly challenges the systemic bias of this encyclopaedia. Sorry, I seem to be whittering again, I just wanted to clarify that my general comments were not meant as specific comments about any specific editor per se. All the best. Alun 20:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Arbitration

Right now, I hate to say, the case would be rejected because you didn't provide a link to the statement in which you indicated that Dab had been notified. The filer has to verify that the statement was received. Just add a link indicating your message to Dab was left on his talk page on the RfA as proof that he was notified and that'll verify that he received the message. Having read your statement, though, I don't necessarily see sufficient evidence of wrongdoing on his part such that ArbCom will rule that the case has enough merit. Not trying to be dispiriting, just letting you know that the chance of it being rejected based on what's been filed might be a good one. John Carter 19:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I do not wish to be involved in an arbcom I am only tangentially related to. The RFC was merely a place to indicate my experiences with dab.Bakaman 00:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. futurebird 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like its goin through, good stff. If its about the block of deeceevoice you should probably add her as a party and inform her. I don't think he'll get any sanction for mild condescension, but you never know. Good luck, when I was involved in one of those it used up a huge amount of time for no reward. Justforasecond 17:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have informed deeceevoice. (She told me on the talk page for the RfC that some real life problems were taking her away from the wikipedia for a bit. So I don't know if she will have the time to comment. We'll see.)futurebird 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious

I'm just curious about which comments in the RfC you felt were "character assignation" Are you talking about my comments? (I'm really just asking and curious, not annoyed, by your opinion, I want to know more so I can understand your concern better.) futurebird 16:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the specifics of your dispute. It's clear that some of the parties to the RFC have an axe to grind (including you) beyond simple complaints about incivility. I noticed that the biggest complainers wisely recused themselves from arbitration. You should realize that the conduct of all editors is evaluated in an arbitration hearing. Sanctions could, at least in theory, be brought against everyone except Dbachmann. Ovadyah 17:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that I have and ax to grind? About what? futurebird 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think. It's up to the committee at this point. Good luck. :0) Ovadyah 17:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I hope you don't take this the wrong way. It does seem likely that the ArbCom request will be taken up. It should be noted that behavior before ArbCom is pretty much like behavior in criminal court. Chatting is kinda discouraged regarding ArbCom cases. Some individuals might (emphasize, might) see your asking questions of others in a less than favorable light. If, as seems likely, the ArbCom does take the case, the best possible means of conduct is probably your best Perry Mason impersonation. Remember, a decision in a case before ArbCom can be made regarding any party involved. I can't imagine that anything you've done would necessarily receive even negative comment there, but if you ever do file for adminship someone might potentially raise it as a concern against you then, particularly given how, ahem, "voluble", some RfAdminship have shown themselves to become. John Carter 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice John. I will keep it in mind. I guess I just want this to be over. futurebird 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that completely. But you should know that, once the case is accepted, which seems likely, there'll be at least a week of everybody getting their statements together, and then the discussion by the members of the committee itself for however long as it takes them to come up with a decision. I remember in the only ArbCom I was ever in before a decision was reached before I even finished my statement, but I don't think that's likely to repeat here. My guess is that we'll probably not see it resolved until about mid-December, maybe even later depending on how many people become inactive over Christmas. But as the filer, if it is accepted, you should probably make the first statement on the "Evidence" page when it gets created. You'll be told when the case is accepted, as seems likely, but just letting you know what to expect is coming. John Carter 19:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

One more note. It would be great if you could use edit summaries more often. It helps others understand what you changed. Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep this in mind on the math articles. futurebird 15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual Baptist

In your eyes, as one of the members of the Baptist work group, should this article be included in the scope of the project, and/or any baptist related categories, or not? Please response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Anabaptist work group#Spiritual Baptist. Thank you. John Carter 22:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Off hand I don't know. Are other similar things included? I'll look in to it a bit and see if there is a clear answer. futurebird 22:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, at least not that I know of. It is on one of the lists of Baptist groups, which is part of the problem. I'll let you know if I find any others that are dubious, though. John Carter 22:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar. I try to "mop up" the vandalism I see, and unfortunately there's a lot of it.

PS - I haven't had a chance to read African American neighborhood, but I'll look at it soon. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Block logs

To look at a block log, click on the user's contribution history, then at the top of the page you'll see name- talk-block log-log. Click on block log and you will see the blocks, whoi issued them and who lifted them (if anyone). Hope this helps. Jeffpw 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

As others have said, it looks like Arbcom will pick up this case. Depending on what issues Arbcom and the clerk decide are central to the case, I may have some input or a statement to make but unless it specifically addresses aspects of dab's behaviour relevant to my experiences with him, I'd prefer to stay clear if possible. I've been to Arbcom before and it was such a nasty affair, I have no desire to even remotely repeat it. However, because I've been through it, I'd be happy to advise you on pitfalls to watch out for. No big ones, mostly attitude and process pointers. It was pretty overwhelming when I went through it and I'd just like to make sure you understand the point of Arbcom and what will likely come out its decisions. My email is enabled if you'd prefer that method of communication although I generally like to keep talk/exchanges on-wiki if possible. Anyway, good luck! And, please, you won't offend me if you decide to ignore or turn down this offer of help. Pigman☿ 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd love to get any advice you have. On-wiki or off wiki is fine. (I'm me@futurebird.com) Since everything that needs to be said seems to have been said at this stage. I'm just going to see if they take the case. I don't want to make this case about larger issues, at least that was my intention, I was really most concerned with what happened at the Afrocentrism article. I feel that a lot of people "jumped on the bandwaggon" and that made me feel supported, but at the same time, each issue may be different and need to be treated separely, and bringing up things from more than say... six months ago, seems a bit like overkill. I can't help but feel like there's been something of a snowballing effect and I don't know or understand the motivations of everyone involved at this point. (I'm not trying to imply that any motivations are bad or good.) All that I can do is be honest, willing to admit any mistakes I've made, and hopeful that this will ultimately have a positive impact on all editors involved, including Dbachmann. I hope that you will participate, because I found your RfC statement to be very level headed. futurebird 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Never surrender!--D-Boy 03:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

FB, looks like DCV erroneously moved most of her comments to your section. I'm a bit reluctant to move them back myself, and I left a message for DCV on her talk page already, but it seems she didn't have time for sorting this out. You may want to look into it - the reason I'm mentioning this is that some people are starting to talk about this on the Evidence talk page, and insinuating you may be socks of one another (I'm not even going to entertain that thought - ROTFLMAO). In any any case, I believe the comments need sorting out, and I think you or DCV are the only ones entitled to legitimately disentangle them.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC and Arbcom

Originally after adding comments to the RfC, I didn't want to do more, not having been involved as the incident happened. Now I've read the Talkpage on RfC, have added more comments, and will be adding more. I'm concerned about the conduct on "Afrocentrism" and will stick to that.--Parkwells (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello?!

Is this how I message you back?!?? Thanks for your advice, and yes it is all very daunting...I never can seem to find what to click on!! I'm afriad I didn't make up the photo, but its been used on so many websites i'm sure its ok! Can you edit the status of it...or tell me how please? Its great to meet you by the way, your values seem really amazing, are you on Facebook at all? Pete Simpson (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

R&I

I appreciate your sharing with me but I happen to be at a low point with wikipedia myself. I do not want to discourage you because i know you have done good work and also bring views and resources Wp is sorely low in. But NOR - a very valuable policy in my opinion, and one I worked hard on, has been under assault for many months. The race article, which I worked hard on to make NPOV and relatively accurate, has been sliced and diced into little pieces that at best bumb it down considerably and at worst create POV forks that enable people to avoid views they do not like. As i hope you know, I think the race and intelligence article simply shouldn't exist - I think there should be articles on various reasons IQ scores may vary (including genetic and SES factors) but I think we should rid ourselves of the problematic and imprecise words "race" and "intelligence" - and provide space for Rushton's views in articles on Rushton and his books, as they are too fringe for the article. Alas I am in a minority of one. Anyway, I spent the summer fighting various little battles at Wikipedia and there are still some articles I have worked on that have some integrity (e.g. ethnic group) but I am feeling pretty despondent myself. If you want to communicate at greater length and with privacy feel free to e-mail me at slrubenstein at yahoo dot com. Let me know if I can help with the Arb-Com case but to be honest I have not been following your edits and can't speak with any knowledge or authority. I know you have been very careful and have learned a lot about the way Wikipedia works. ArbCom cases are tedious and tiring it is true but if you are clear and concise and use evidence appropriately, if you haven't violated any behavioral policies, and give your enemies enough rope to hang themselves with, you will probably win. I do wish you luck and will check in at R&I regularly. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. Let me know when you post it and I will support it, but ffrankly - I fear it will fall. Run it by Alun and Ramdrake to see if they can improve upon it, and of course others whom you respect. I recently reitterated my own proposal on the R&I talk page, but in the middle of some other discussion ... I will check out the ArbCom case but cannot promise anything useful, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think Race and Health violates NOR. I once added a section on Dbil, or whatever the drug is called, to the race article. As you know I do not like the way that the Race article was split up and reorganized into spearate articles. But, if there are going to be separate articles, I think the Race and health is a pretty good one. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Kappa Alpha

I supported keeping the articles on the sorority and individuals, and have some ideas for how to strengthen the article (and they relate to articles on individuals as well) which I added to the TalkPage, found a few more sources (although don't have most of the books, but there is a recent one that looks perfect) and rewritten the first paragraph in a direction that may strengthen it. Will work on more this weekend, but wanted to let you, CJ, Miranda, and A.B. know, so you could see if it is along the lines you're thinking of. (Will check other names from the RfD too.) --Parkwells (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Race

I do not think the break up of this article was effective, in fact, I think it produced POV forks and distorted the issue. I have tried to put it back together, but acknowledge it needs work and would be grateful if you could go over it Slrubenstein | Talk 18:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and I reverted to an earlier stable version and am trying to cut and paste newer and good stuff from the spin-off articles (which I thought were unclear and also often NPOV forks) and would appreciate your help. About paper-chain - why not write an essay for starts - it will help you get things off your chest, clarify your ideas, and put them in the public space without drawing the contention and attacks a policy proposal will. I have started some essays myself and think they have a valuable place here and as you develop your ideas and invite others to check it out, you can always condider proposing a guideline later. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

R&I

Hi Futurebird. I really like your proposal for the R&I stuff, I agree entirely that this is really the synthesis of various academic disciplines and research that may be vaguely related but don't necessarily form a coherent body of work. I do think you'll find trouble getting a consensus behind your proposal though. I think the reason is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as it says, it's about what people believe, so many people will argue that people believe that this information belongs together. On the other hand I think we can make a good case for creating an article about socioeconomic and socio-cultural effects on test scores, this can include a discussion of the various ways people are excluded from equal access to education. Then we just redirect the R&I article to the new article. If we include the Rushton/Jensen stuff in articles about their publications, then we can always include links in the see also section of the article, so people who want to read about their work can get there easily. It's a real slog dealing with "race" related article, I never knew so many people still believed all this nonsense, do we have a biased sample here, or is there really such a large proportion of people with these outdated nineteenth century beliefs? Alun (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)