Jump to content

User talk:JereKrischel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages. Again, welcome!


~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology Resolution work in progress

[edit]

Hi there! I got your message and have a suggestion. Since I can't come up with the material you need right this instant, and it may take us some time to agree on a common version, would you mind reverting your change to Apology Resolution and continuing work on your draft improvements in a User sub-page? That way the article isn't left in a halfway, "under construction" state.

To create a User sub-page, first create the page User:JereKrischel. Within the bounds of Wikiquette, you can put anything you want on it, it's your page! Then create one or more sub-pages such as User:JereKrischel/Work in progress, copy-pasting the entire text of your proposed new Apology Resolution into the work in progress page.

My work-in-progress page for Apology Resolution is here. You can see the direction I was going with it. The idea is, we look at each other's ideas, crib from each other and from anybody else who weighs in with useful bits, until we get a common version we like. --IslandGyrl 06:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again! It looks as if I won't be able to Wikipedia much for several weeks due to some work I now have to do as a result of the recent German elections. So articles on Hawaiian politics are in your hands for awhile! Don't worry, I'm sure you'll do a good job. As the (native) Hawaiians I know would say, hey, they've been waiting for 112 years, so what's being underrepresented on Wikipedia for a few more weeks? :-) I'll be back to help paddle the canoe when it's settled what the new coalition government in Germany is going to be. Aloha & a hui hou… --IslandGyrl 23:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

[edit]

Hi, I am the anonymous contributor who has been causing trouble on a couple of Hawaiian related pages.

Thank you for your help. I notice you have made a lot of progress with IslandGyrl and it appears that I wll be more successful if I pattern my behavior a little more like yours. I know we haven't talked before and I never asked for help but you clearly delivered it anyway and I appreciate it.

Thank you again. Emperor Otho 22:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii recent changes

[edit]

Aloha. I notice you've been reverting vandalism on Hawaii-related articles. If you're interested, you can also keep an eye on Hawaii recent changes. To add articles of importance to this public watchlist, edit this page. --Viriditas | Talk 14:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Hawaii

[edit]

Thank you for catching my mistake when I accidentally reverted the Hawaii article back about two weeks. I only meant to change the US state infobox template, but since I had old versions of the Hawaii article open on my browser to try and decide which version was best, I think I probably edited one of the outdated versions instead of the most recent one. I edited the main page again [1], please tell me if you object to my changes. Thanks, 青い(Aoi) 06:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

[edit]

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 24% for major edits and 79% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 72 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: discontent with the Monarchy

[edit]

The point is that you cannot claim that any majority supported the overthrow of the monarchy with any certainty, save for the white settlers. I don't think the "Hawaii" page has any room for controversial points. I think scant mention of the overthrow is the best solution. Otherwise, I'll be forced to explain your interpretation. I'll leave it up to you to revise it.M.ana 03:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can claim that - the riots against Kalakaua in favor of Queen Emma, as well as the hawaiian language newspapers of Liliuokalani's day clearly indicate a general sentiment against the monarchy from all quarters. In fact, many kanaka maoli wanted Kaiulani to take over the restored throne, if it was to be restored. Liholiho was the last monarch of Hawaii who had anything close to what could be called universal support amongst any group of people. Again, see Andrade, Unconquerable Rebel. --JereKrischel 03:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no you can't. There are sources that suggest Emma declined the throne when offered. Which, as far as your perspective is concerned, only proves that the people was against certain individuals (and even to suggest that the majority of Hawaiians opposed Kalakaua and/or Liliuokalani would hardly be a NPOV.) and not against the monarchy as a whole. I don't think including that explanation is pertinent, do you? --User:M.ana
Whether or not Emma declined the throne when offered does not mean that the riots against Kalakaua, and the subsequent landing of U.S. peacekeepers, didn't illustrate a discontent against the monarchy. There is clear evidence, without any particular POV pushing, that indicates that both Kalakaua and Liliuokalani did not enjoy the same support as did the Kamehamehas and Liholiho. To ignore the vast amount of evidence regarding the instability during both Kalakaua's and Liliuokalani's reign is POV pushing. --JereKrischel 04:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There was no general concensus on public sentiment, only your bias interpretation of how the population should have reacted to certain legislation. Your version sounds like blatant bias. You cannot say with any type of certainty that there was broad opposition to the Monarchy except from inferences. And your statement, "growing discontent with the monarchy in general" is an outright lie. I can concieve, possibly, how there could be discontent with a certain Monarch, but to say that in general terms people were discontented with the monarchy is revisionism and stands for much of the editing you've done thus far. How can you rationalize support for Queen Emma and with the same breath claim that there was no support for the Monarchy? Frankly, this whole conversation and subsequent editing has gotten too far out of the realm of pertinent information. I say make a very broad edit to the charcaterization of Liliuokalani with minimal allusions to the overthrow. Really, why is this page even trying to explain the overthrow? Further, why are you pushing the issue?
The newspapers of the day, both Hawaiian language and otherwise, clearly indicate a general public discontent with the monarchy from all quarters, even if there was no consensus on the remedy or the reason for such discontent. Other writings of the time indicate this as well. This is not an inference or an interpretation, it is a verifiable fact. And support for Queen Emma was really the beginning of discontent - had she come to power, and ruled, the excesses of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani may never have caused reason for discontent with the monarchy. Are you trying to claim that there was widespread general contentedness amongst any particular portion of the population? Do you have any references to that effect that contradict the published works of the time critical of the Kalakaua dynasty? --JereKrischel 05:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could suggest sources all day too. How about some references to back up your assertion?
Sorry, not used to the tilde closer yet M.ana 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shoal of Time, by Gavan Daws. Unconquerable Rebel, by Ernest Andrade. The Hawaiian Kingdom (3 volume set), by Ralph Kuykendall. If you haven't read through any of those, I highly suggest starting with Andrade, it's a short read, and covers a lot of political detail surrounding the Kalakaua dynasty in particular. (oh, and to sign a section, use two dashes, and four tildes --~~~~ )--JereKrischel 03:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Main Article-ism

[edit]

I'm sorry Jere, I cannot allow you to keep your version of history. Please read Neutral Point of View, NPOV tutorial and Information Suppression. Unless you can come up with a more credible source than Kuykendall, I'll have to ask you to desist from inserting your POV. As far as "General discontent", I'll accept that as long as you cite Gavan Daws. Zora has already showed me the reference. Please refrain from pushing your POV in the future. M.ana 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologist rhetoric

[edit]

I am not the one disputing Daws or Kuykendall. You are the one that removed Kuykendall's reference. I am not disputing Daws either, you will find on your talk page as well as Zora's, that I am perfectly fine with other interpretations as long as a reputable author is cited. I am totally fine with citing any adverse views as long as you have a source and are willing to divulge those sources. As a rule of thumb, and as per the NPOV guideline, you should probably consider whether you would include the author of a point of view before editing anything remotely controversial. Further, as per the NPOV, citing sources is preferable over uncited material. I would suggest that you take your own advice. This is not a blog, stop treating it as such. Remember, we are not rewriting history, but relaying the events of the past. Please refrain from insinuating apologist rhetorc in any future edits. M.ana 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you specifically disputed Kuykendall: "Unless you can come up with a more credible source than Kuykendall" were your exact words. My contributions here are not apologist rhetoric, but well referenced and cited. You may disagree with the sources cited, but my inclusion of information regarding the Hawaiian Revolution that is counter to your POV is not an insertion of POV on my part. If you have specific issues with wording, please suggest changes to make things more NPOV, and refrain from making the error of assuming that your personal POV, or that of "sovereignty activists" is a neutral one. --JereKrischel 02:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "Unless you can come up with..." was my quote. It was a reference to my inclusion of Kuykendall that disputed your "changing hands" notion, for which you had no obvious citation. My quote of Kuykendall is what is now incorporated in the paragraph. A little attention to detail might improve your your insight. I'd also like to ask you to refrain from starting unfounded malicious topics on my talk page. Thank you for your cooperation. M.ana 02:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Mana, I misinterpreted your assertion. I thought you were disparaging Kuykendall as a credible source for the general discontent with the monarchy. I don't think Kuykendall disputes the "changing hands" notion, but I agree that changing that to "changing control" versus "changing hands" was a decent change. My apologies for misunderstanding what you were trying to say. --JereKrischel 02:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a show of good faith, I've edited percieved disparaging remarks. M.ana 03:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Selective Witnesses

[edit]

Just a quick cease and desist request. Here is a quote from you "I understand the the transition from sovereignty comment boards to Wikipedia can be a difficult one, and I hope you are able to clearly differentiate between the rhetoric appropriate on one, and the collegial spirit required on the other." However, if you go on over to my talk page, your malicious topic of "Tin-foil hat" is counter to what you just suggested to me. As I've suggested before, please pay attention to detail before making accusations. It is clear to me that you are in no position to give advice on the above topics. Please refrain from acting in an uncivil manner. For reference I will point you to Wikipedia guidelines. Your cooperation is of the utmost importance to me. M.ana 03:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if the use of "tin-foil hat" came off as insulting - it was not intended that way. "Tin-foil hat" is a fairly common wikipedia term used in relation to far-out viewpoints. My assertion that your viewpoint is limited to a particular minority is in no way meant to be insulting - it is meant to be informative as you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. --JereKrischel 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'll have to ask you to quit labeling me. It is unfruitful and shows your unprofessionalism. Perhaps a greater degree of impartiality is required on your part. Thank you for your cooperation. M.ana 03:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your talk page for the adjusted section title without the "Tin-foil hat" label. --JereKrischel 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration. M.ana 03:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonet Constitution

[edit]

I think it should go in order of relevance; ie The Constitution and Liluokalani first as these are source documents, and then you can arrange the opinion pieces in whatever order you see fit. I suggest staggering them. M.ana 23:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should categorize them into source documents (the full text), books (twigg/liliuokalani), versus articles & opinion pieces? I'll throw something up, let me know if you can think of further improvement. --JereKrischel 23:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

[edit]
You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures. --Fasten talk/med 12:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Power

[edit]

Thanks for your message, would it be possible to discuss some of this privately via email? Arniep 01:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing others pages

[edit]

I apologize for editing out one word that would make your statement a correct one. However, I honestly thought that was acceptable practice. I am very new to Wikipedia. Yesterday, Arniep removed an entire post that I made on discussion, and since he seems to be kind of a bigwig at Wikipedia, I assumed editing others' post was acceptable. That said, I don't understand why you are so eager to prove someone bisexual when you didn't even seem to know who he was. And, I'm not sure why you prefer to leave an incorrect post.

Tyrone Power mediation

[edit]

Concerning your remarks on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-03_Tyrone_Power#Mediation_process:

Hapa article

[edit]

Thanks for helping out with sorting out the external links; it's something I don't know much about. As for dealing with hapas.com vs. realhapas.com, the links should probably only show up in a discussion of the controversy. Of course, I'm not sure whether to mention that in the main article or just on the Talk page. Hmmmm. --Alan Au 21:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ContiE has impersonated me on other wikis

[edit]

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [2] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 07:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision Userbox

[edit]

You may find a userfied version of the deleted box in my user space at User:Tomyumgoong/ubx/nocirc, feel free to subst or transclude it if you wish. Tomyumgoong 07:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

What is your reason for removing the Hapa link to X-Plicitley Mixed? How is it that I am not allowed to post a link that X-Plicitley Mixed dedicates exclusively to Hapa's yet Mixed Folks is allowed to be on there as is Swirl that doesn't even have Hapa's on their front page or with resources with some degree of extent? Please clarrify as I see biasm at this moment, but retain my judgement for the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you

I am updating this response after finding out your other action's upon the word's eurasian and blasian. If I am not allowed to post a website that is more than resourceful yet, someone from Mixed Folks whose link does not even directly attend to the word Hapa then clearly there is an issue here and quite ironically a sense of biasm. You can not give me a good reason why X-Plicitely Mixed's Hapa website can not be there but a overly broad website is allowed too. As a matter of fact XP has a forum dedicated exclusively to Hapa's whereas most of those websites (excluding Eurasian nation and Hapas) don't even do that. If you continue and support this type of biasm by the constant editing of the link to X-Plicitely Mixed's Hapa site, I will bring up a dispute and personally contact Wikipedia myself (Call them, etc, the whole 9 yards). X-Plicitely Mixed's Hapa site is not commercial, do you see any products sold? Clearly not, nor is it anyone's personal website, rather a professional one meant to attend a Multiracial and in that case, Hapa/Eurasian audience. I would like to to diffuse in the most peaceful manor, please clarrify your reason's, otherwise I will handle this another way I trust; rather un-preferably, I'm sure we can work out something. Again I see hypocrisy.

Another thing, based on the history under the word Eurasian, you are seen reverting to a previous version. I find it ironic that you allow the eurasian webpage of X-Plicitley Mixed to be broadcasted under the word Eurasian yet you don't with the word Hapa. As a matter of fact you desire to place the link in a position that seems of your personal preference. Either way I have the history saved and will make my case to the appropiate individuals if we can not resovle a legitable and justifiable stance.

Interesting enough I also checked on the word blasian. You delted the message board that goes to a blasian (meant for those half black and half asian) on X-Plicitley Mixed. I would also like an explanation about this? Everything seems to be perfect timing Alan. Odd, I look forward to hearing from you, if not, from your superiors, to the top of Wikipedia. Guranteed dear sir.

I really would like to see this go peacefully and in preference for both of us within legitable and rational conclusions. My words are a reaction to your action, simple, and not meant to be negatively harnessed upon.

Thank you Jere

==========
[edit]

Hey Jere!

I just got your response! Wow quick timing and absolutely appreciative, thank you. I supposed we can exchange, almost like a chat session. Well to begin friend, I am not an owner or affiliated with X-Plicitly Mixed on a high level. I just post at their boards, read their news, listen on the latest event's etc. And as a matter of fact love it and see them as a very healthy place for ALL multiracial's. That's the reason I am trying to get the word out. You see Jere, multiracial's have many issues and if I can just dedicate a little bit of my time by getting the word out to a very professional, neat, and legitable website like XP then hey that makes a difference for the better. Again it's not my site and don't know why you assumed that immediately, just a fan of theirs. Just check out their site friend, you'll see they adhere to the largest multiracial groups, at least in America. What do you think? :)

Thanks again Jere!


Frankly, I'd be all for removing the Swirl link (seems explicitly non-commercial though). Same thing with Mixed Folks. Are you in competition with them? If this is a matter of treating commercial ventures equally (be it by offering products, or generating traffic in order to build advertising revenues), I'm more than happy to remove the other links you've mentioned. Please, if you'd like to contribute content, please do. But your current linkspamming is just not appropriate

==

[edit]

That would make sense to me as they are in the same commercial position as x-plicitley mixed. Please do remove them.

Thank you for the clarification of your association with them. I might humbly suggest that Wikipedia is not a place to "get the word out". There are many other options for you, including blogging, which will allow you to share your passion for that website to a large audience. I did check out the site, and it looks like there are still large portions of it unavailable, although it may be because I'm using firefox. Nonetheless, please do not be offended by the response you have gotten so far on wikipedia - it is not meant to denigrate your point of view, or censor your enthusiasm for this website. However, it really isn't an appropriate venu. I hope that your passion will inspire you to contribute content to Wikipedia, even if it isn't a place for you to "spread the word". Mahalo and thank you for your conversation. --JereKrischel 05:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

================
[edit]

I am not using Wikipedia to get the word out to anyone just to provide resources to websites that pertain to the topic. In that case it was hapa. I also don't see why a blasian board on XP cant be listed under the blasian definition. As in why did you delete it? It's a discussion group and was listed there for some time.

The website comes up fine, yes it must be firefox.

dot com domain names

[edit]

Jere, not all domains ending in .com are commercial. If .org is taken, people use .com. You have to look at the site, not at the domain name. I think you removed some non-commercial sites. However, it has been a while since I clicked through them, so I could be wrong. Zora 08:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilcox rebellions

[edit]

Much better. Zora 20:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha!

[edit]

Thanks for your message, Jere. Yeah, Iʻm sure weʻll disagree on a lot of stuff, but thatʻs how the overall knowledge base will grow, huh? I will always do the very best I can to be fair and respectful, though I know that in controversial areas, even the mildest corrections can look pretty intense...anyway, if you ever feel like you bust me for stepping out of these bounds, please write me about it right away, as I want to be careful about this. I definitely appreciate your contributions of historical detail, & hope we can work together to make some truly enlightening stuff! p.s. Iʻd also appreciate technical hints, as Iʻm pretty new to this.... E malama pono -- Laualoha

Mahalo nui for the tech tips. I have to say I dunno if my skill is high enough to use them, but Iʻll try! Aloha, Laualoha 07:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)...p.s. Christmas is real busy for me cuza da kids (yes Iʻm colonized! So what!)but if you send me a message a little beforehand, Iʻm usually looking for excuses to get out on da ʻaina. Also:NO EAT SPAM!! Bad for the soul. I heard you can get laulau in L.A....[reply]

License tagging for Image:H56555.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:H56555.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Aloha

[edit]

After all these days of dukinʻ it out on the Legal Status of Hawaiʻi page, I just wanted to send ya some aloha & tell you I really appreciate your efforts to work things out (as well as your very helpful tech advice), even when it gets frustrating for both of us. E malama Pono!! Laualoha 02:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rushton, etc

[edit]

Hey JereKrischel, thanks for the comment on my talk page. Wikipedia has always seemed interesting to me because of these kinds of challenges. I think in the end we need to take somewhat centrist positions in order to be good editors.. If we can't view opposing sides as both being internally consistent arguments that only produce different results because they're based on different assumptions.. then I think we're not really doing our job. Anyway, I think most Wikipedians would, in the end, have a good time together if they were in the same room at a Wiki meetup or went to a bar together or something. See you around, Nectar 00:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion at R&I may be getting closer to some of the hidden reasoning of the different POVs, but sorry if it sometimes gets messy. --Nectar 06:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to J. Philippe Rushton

[edit]

Your recent edit to J. Philippe Rushton was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Census

[edit]

I believe you are mistaken, although Asian/White made up a large amount of the interracail population, they were accounted for over 720,000 while Black/Whites were reported for over 770,000. Black/White relations still remain the largest group from 1990 and so forth.

What may work is a refrence correctly cited. When looking into your thesis, I found that you may have been correct if you were including those who are pacific islander, which in point, is not to be confused as asian. If that was what you meant to say, then your statement would have made more sense, but it remains the white/asian preportion was not the highest, black/white was. But if you include pacific islander, then you can rightfully make that statement.

No it's not true, because once again Pacific Islander does not classify as asian, so if it's drawn they make up a large percentage but that conclusion inserts the pacific islander population, it that simplifys that percentage is shared and therefore can not be classified as the largest.

"http://www.csupomona.edu/~mreibel/2000_Census_Files/Allen-Turner.doc"

There is the document you can look over, it's a matter of simple research.

Why? For the word - Mulatto

[edit]

Why is a webpage to Explicitly Mixed considered commercial when the other's that you leave up NOT? They are just as "commercial as Explicitly Mixed." By the way Explicitly Mixed is a non-profit organization incase you never figured that one out. The site I posted up for mulatto's was put together by a number of editors from bbc and local abc channel's alongside some census taker's. It's very credible. I await your RATIONAL answer.

Angela


Just to inform you, Angela. What this guy is trying to say is that the site(s) that you are trying to link to are more of an online magazine than a reliable research source. The only way wikipedia can be a reliable reference, is to use reliable references. Bobcheezy 03:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jereschel nor you bobcheezy has given me a good reason for anything. You only ASSUME it's a online magazine without even contacting the site. Wow, he even removed the link under the word Multiracial. I take it he really hate's Explicitly Mixed. I think I know where this is heading. Thank you for your time gentlemen.

Eurasian

[edit]

Thank you for your willingness to listen to reason unlike some of the other editors active on Eurasian (mixed ancestry).

Rushton table

[edit]

Perhaps we shouldn't describe it is a direct citation. The reason the table must be altered is because you wouldn't allow Rushton's theory to be discussed in the text so we have to put this interesting data somewhere. Bluescientist 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the WP:3RR rule in Mulatto. The annon has also been blocked. Please stop revert warning. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can of worms on Tyrone Power

[edit]

If you are willing, I need to talk to you about that mediation case you did on Tyrone Power to help keep the size of the can of worms I'm about to open from being too large. Email me via wikipedia. Kevin_b_er 01:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanford B. Dole sources

[edit]

Although I appreciate your willingnes to add sources to the Sanford B. Dole article, neither of the sources provided are, in and off themselves, reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines. For instance, the "Do the Facts Matter" book (which I assume you were linking to in the first citation) seems to be published by a vanity press, or at best is self-published. The second citation I'm not sure what you were trying to source, but in general wikis aren't acceptable as reliable sources for anything other than themselves. There's an additional level of caution that we need to apply to those sources, because each one is clearly pushing a certain POV (in the book's case, one that is out of step from mainstream scholarship, as far as I can tell). I'll add a different notice now that there are a few sources, but as it is the information is still poorly sourced by Wikipedia standards. Captainktainer * Talk 14:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Goodale Publishing is the author's own press, which qualifies as a vanity press [3]. I first saw the accusation in the Amazon reviews and confirmed it with this link. There are a few other books published by Goodale Publishing, but mostly light art books and the like. For that matter, questions have arisen concerning the accuracy of his representation of the historical record; some founded, some not. The first problem is enough to disqualify it as a reliable source; the second shows why Wikipedia tends to disqualify such books. As for the Morgan Report, that may well qualify; I would recommend, for each fact in the article that comes from it, that it be cited according to their guidelines. Captainktainer * Talk 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

[edit]

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PARC User Interface Research Group

Re: Native Hawaiians

[edit]

I take issue with your changes to my edits. Whether you are aware of it or not, the text you suggest seems to express a preference for the anti-Akaka sentiment -- even, bafflingly, for the historical revisionism (the whitewash Morgan Report notwithstanding) that there was "no injustice" done to the Kingdom of Hawaii. That the United States had a covert role in the events of 1893 is not really disputable. The apology bill would seem to have settled this, at least officially.

For what it's worth, I am not a flaming Akaka Bill activist (nor, as a white landowner living in Hawaii, a sovereignty supporter either), but it is a fact that while it is certainly not universal, there is broad support for the bill across much of the political spectrum here in the state (a context not necessarily reflected on the mainland), and this fact should be more clearly represented in the article. It is perfectly proper to point out that some disagree, and why, but giving context to who those people are is also only fitting. The same context is provided by pointing out that some of the opposition comes from Hawaiian activists, so why is it any different to say that other opposition comes from the "conservative" perspective? Finally, while you are correct that "libertarian" is a decidedly different POV than religious conservatism, conservative they most certainly still are.

I'm not trying to cause a major problem, but as (what I consider to be) a relatively neutral bystander in these debates here, it definitely seems to me that the article as you would have it does not reflect either the nuanced reality of the political context surrounding the Akaka Bill, nor indeed of the historial facts that transpired in 1893. Aloha. Arjuna 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JK, thanks for the comments, although they are still somewhat mystifying to me. I'm not sure who the misinformed one is here. Are you suggesting that the U.S. Government had no role in encouraging the overthrow? Really? The Morgan report has never been challenged? Really? What is your source for this assertion? I don't take native Hawaiian sovereignty activists, many of whom I would completely agree with you are radical and extremist, at face value, and conversely, you might find it both salubrious and instructive to not always take official government reports at face value.

I do, however, appreciate your sending me the links to the information on the Morgan Report. Given the fact that you were instrumental in writing them, it is not entirely odd that they mirror the ideas you have already expressed. I haven't checked the other links, but assume they similarly oriented.

The article/s seem to reference the Grassroots Institute in with a frequency that would suggest something statistically improbable. THis is odd. If you are a libertarian, more power to you, and that POV should certainly be represented fairly as well, but let's not continue to cloak it as "objectivity". If you want to have Bruce Fein's report mentioned and linked up, that's totally legit. However, if so then the article should also balance it with the alternative POV. Furthermore, You say that "to date there has been no rebuttal to his assertions on their merits", but come on, be serious -- that's a strawman argument. If no one has explicity rebutted him, then perhaps that is because those involved in the debate didn't think it even merited such attention. The problem is that you seem to want only your POV represented, and that's what I'm saying needs to be corrected.

You are incorrect in saying that I seek to "label activists who challenge the historical mythology of the hawaiian sovereignty movement as "conservative" while not wanting to label the other side. Fair enough, let's put all the players in some context, including yours. One aside: worringly, you conflate the Akaka bill with the sovereignty movement, which is incorrect. These are separate though obviously not unrelated. Obviously you are bright enough to understand that the possible creation of a legal Hawaiian entity is not the same as the movement to re-establish a sovereign state/kingdom.

As for the poll results you cite, you're going to have to come up with a more unbiased source than GI, who obviously has a dog in this fight. It doesn't seem a good idea to rely on oil companies for polling data on public opinion on global warming either. Aloha, Arjuna 03:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, your blog at http://www.krischel.org/ is most instructive. It seems you have a particularly strong perspective on these issues -- as is certainly your right -- but that notwithstanding I think it is all the more advisable for you to strive for a more NPOV in future editing. I actually don't have a dog in this fight, but when I look up a Wikipedia article, I want the facts, not bias, which is what comes through in many of your edits. In any event, rather than get into a revert war, why don't we try to work cooperatively to find some neutral language we can all agree on? Aloha, Arjuna 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JereKrischel, thanks for the comments. I don't have time today to compose a full reply, but I echo your sentiment that we can come up with something that's fair to various POVs. Thanks and aloha! Arjuna 03:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

testosterone

[edit]

Hi JereKrischel, do you remember if the testosterone discussions got moved out of the Rushton article during your recent reorganization?--Nectar 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

[edit]

JereKrsichel, as a courtesy, I wanted to inform you I've placed a report of 3RR violation at race and intelligence.[4] It's disruptive to Wikipedia and other editors to insist your proposed changes stand as the current version. --Admissions 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts vs. findings

[edit]

I believe it's factual that if you randomly select people from a large group with a 3% lower average IQ you will see more high school dropouts and other changes. Whether this would occure if the drop was for real and nation wide is a different issue, but the finding itself is interesting and doesn't need to be watered down. I must add that IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Lynn supports the hypothesis.

I think the real issue here is that opponents can't come up with an equally interesting study that supports an egalitarian world view. So instead of focussing on a progressive contribution to the science field of psychometrics they waste their time throwing tomatoes at the opposition.

As far as I can see the section of the article is neutral. --Zero g 22:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

[edit]

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for having violated WP:3RR. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 10:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|3RR violation didn't happen: there were 2 reverts, and 5 attempts at compromise wording. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:JereKrischel_reported_by_User:Admissions_.28Result:24hrs.29 3RR board]}}

quoted from 3RR page

[edit]

WP:3RR policy is technically "Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in the case of obvious, simple vandalism." In my opinion, even under a liberal interpretation of policy the above links meet the criteria of reverts: reverts to "according to their model," "they predicted," and "their model showed" are for these purposes the same.--Admissions 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Admissions here clearly admits, the changes he called "reverts" were in fact attempts at compromise language - especially on such a sensitive page as Race and intelligence, such compromise minutiae are critical. Please unblock the account as per WP:3RR. Thank you! --JereKrischel 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

full details copied from 3RR page

[edit]
Excuse me, this wasn't a revert, this was an attempt at compromise wording:

URL from original version cited, to version cited as a revert --JereKrischel

This was not a revert either (to either the original cite, or to the previous version: URL from previous version cited as "2nd Revert" to version cited as "3rd Revert" --JereKrischel
This was the first revert: cited "3rd revert" compared to cited "4th revert" --JereKrischel

Time report made: 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This was the second revert:

cited "4th revert" compared to cited "5th revert" --JereKrischel

Courtesy notice of 3RR reporting given at 22:42, 2 August 2006

This was another attempt at compromise wording: cited "5th revert" compared to new compromise version --JereKrischel
This was another attempt at compromise wording:

"6th revert" compared to new compromise version --JereKrischel

Comments:

3 other users opposed my edits, but they were not reverts. --JereKrischel
Will you please reconsider in light of the evidence? I did not 3RR, I reverted at most 2 times, and after that tried to find compromise wording. --JereKrischel
Hi again. You've added "direct causation" four times [6] [7] [8] [9] and (treated as identical) "direct causality" once. [10] El_C 20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, are you asserting that if I find someone uses the same two words during an attempt to find compromise language, it counts as reverts? If I find the same pattern for someone else on the Race and intelligence page, will you block them as well? Besides the two actual reverts I did, every attempt I made at compromise was an honest one. --JereKrischel 21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, by your count, I used "direct causation" only three times, and "direct causality" twice - still not enough to breach 3RR. Again, trying to find compromise language on the details take a lot of back and forth, and I'm afraid by your standard, we'd have 3RR violations on that article from all of the active editors. --JereKrischel 21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "two words," that depends on the context in which they are repeated and what they convey. RE: "direct causation" versus "direct causality," I opted to to treat both as interchangeable in this case. El_C 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[11] ("direct causality")

[12] ("direct causation")

[13] ("direct causation")

[14] ("direct causation")

[15] ("direct causality")

Sorry, but I stand by my interpertation of WP:3RR. Feel free to appeal my decision through whichever channels you fit. Regards, El_C 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example of 3RR according to strict criteria

[edit]

Base version: 00:00 August 2 2006

First revert: 17:25 August 2 2006

Second revert: 18:22 August 2 2006

Third revert: 23:24 August 2 2006

You can see from his history that he used the same phrase "This calculation was conducted twice and averaged together" four times - would this count as a 3RR violation by your criteria, El C? --JereKrischel 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's only 3 reverts listed, so it cannot be a 3RR violation. El_C 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought that's what you were asserting with the 3 uses i made of "direct causation"...I think perhaps I misunderstood you. I'll be sure to check with you directly the next time I'm worried about violating 3RR - any help in the matter is greatly appreciated! --JereKrischel 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked via a promice in email that you would avoid editing the article for 24 hours and doubts that a 3rr happened. You can edit the talk page in the article if you want. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalo, Jaranda. I'll avoid direct edits to Race and intelligence till tomorrow. --JereKrischel 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jaranda has a poor grasp of the 3RR policy if that is his conclusion, but I have no objections. El_C 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JereKrischel/Archive_1&oldid=1083763398"