Welcome!

Hello, LSLM, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Junes 08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment at Talk:Latin peoples

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Khoikhoi 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael76

ok chill out veritas. dont report me, its a waste of time over such a small matter. I suggest we talk about it here before we take it any further. I am watching your page you can answer me here directly.--Ismael76 18:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message in your page. Veritas et Severitas 18:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we can talk here from now on. Its ok if u cant cancel the reporting, the thing is I have been involved in reporting people in the past and its really a waste of time especially when involving reasonable people. By the way that final revert was just a joke. Im sure we can come to some consensus although we should better keep the discussions in our personal talk pages rather than making fools of ourselves in the article talk page. We should perhaps start off with a list of things on which we agree and then go on to things on which we dont so as to discuss them peacefully.--Ismael76 19:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are the one behind that final revert, you are going a bit too far. I am an adult, I do not know if you are a kid, I hope not, but your behaviour is very strange if you are familiar with the basic Wiki rules. I have always refrained from attacking you personallly in the article talk page, it is not my style, but your refusal to accept just a normal and verifiable contribution is quite strange. Let me ask you and do not be offended. I know that you are Spanish. If you want we can continue in Spanish. I think that you are from Ceuta or Melilla or from the extreme South of Spain, probably with some North African background. Tell me, Am I wrong? When you asked me about my origins I had no problems to answer it, though you have been trying to use it against me later, not very elegant, by the way. In any case I do not have to hide it. Veritas et Severitas 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is a good analysis of my user contributions. Perhaps you are right that we should put our personal issues in the open. I was born in Ceuta although I no longer live in Spain. I have "north african" background although my family is jewish not muslim. I originally started contributing to this article, having randomly come across it, because I was baffled by the ignorance of certain users who expressed racist views, making sweeping statements over who is and is not white and starting sections on "white history and civilisations". I started watching the article, privately believing the whole thing should be deleted as unencyclopedic. I admit I am suspicious of you since I also checked up your user contributions, much of which consist of defending the Europeanness of Spaniards and minimising any non-african or other influence, and I have noticed you have come into conflict with other users over this. I dont think that "White people" article is a suitable place for defending positions with such racialist connotations. Anyways, I am sure we can set aside our personal issues and find a consensus on this point in question.

--Ismael76 20:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ismael, If I am something is an Anti-Racist. I admit it, I do not have neutral feelings in this area. I hate racists, they are the worst plague in this planet, so do not get me wrong. I have been contributing also sometimes here. One of my lines has been to fight some clearly racist attitudes and comments. I have been defending and introducing for a long time that the term white is just a colloquial term for caucasian, that it does not equal European, and that North Africa and the Middle EAst is also a natural area of habitation for white people. All those comments have often been erased by simple people (and I think racist who think that they are not white for whatever reason, and so on). At the end I have been able that the reference to the Middle East and North Africa are in the World Distribution Section, not exactly how I made it, but at least recognized, and I will get back to it, because I think that it is still tendentious (the reference to the "broad US Census"). By the way it was me who erased the section on white nationalism, discussing it first, of course, and I have been insiting that to include white nationalist criteria here is absolutely inacceptable, etc.

Anyway, as you say, let us not concentrate on the messenger, and let us concentrate on the message.

Often I have come across references to Iberia and Spain that are simply wrong in my opinion and according to reputable and verifiable sources. If Lithuania has 1000 miles of roads and people insist that is has 2000 of 500, I will insist that it has 1000, it is just like that. Yet, I understand that other people may have other points of view, and as long as they support them with reputable proof, I am ready to respect that. That is how Wiki works. What I think you do not realize is that it is you who is trying to delete my contributions continuously, even though my contributions are all according to Wiki rules and standards. It is not me who is insisting on deleting yours. Mine and yours represent two perspectives, supported by documentation. It is as simple as that. Sorry, again, but I think that your behaviour is not being appropriate and I think that you can understand that. Veritas et Severitas 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the main point in question, what I meant is that the "White people" article should not become a battleground over how much north african admixture is to be found in Spaniards. Considering there must be dozens of genetic studies on this issue, many seemingly contradicting each other, it would make no sense to include all of them, or to argue cases. The article should barely mention iberia at all.

Anyways we may soon have to leave this discussion on hold for a couple of weeks. I am moving home soon and wont really have time to access the internet.

--Ismael76 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racist!

Your attitude really is disgusting and racist. I have read your comments to Gibnews.........you really are pathetic. Gibrlatar was not "stolen" by anyone.

Gibraltar is not, and NEVER will be a part of spain. Not even a little bit. Not now, not ever. So you and your racist, fascist comrades can dream on, but DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM will prevail. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.236.92 (talk • contribs)

Verifiability

You really need to calm down and stop insulting other editors. It is a policy on Wikipedia to assume good faith. I really don't understand why you cannot accept that your citations are not reliable sources. I have pointed you to the correct guideline (in science avoid citing the popular press. I urge you to find better sources for your edits. You should be using either the original book, which you do not appear to own or have read (so how do you know what it says?) or scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals. I have had many problems with newspaper articles in the past, they rarely accurately report science in my experience, and newspapers always report scientific theories as if they are fact, rather than evidence for a particular point of view. I would like report what Bryan Sykes has actually said himself, rather than what a journalist thinks he has said. I have ordered Sykes's book and will read it when it arrives, I can then cite it in the article, please do not include extremely unreliable newspaper reports. Here's an example of how poor the journalists are at reporting science. The original paper: Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration. What a journalist said about it :English and Welsh are races apart. So the journalist said almost the oposite of what the original paper said. Since removing very much mis-reporting of science by newspapers from wikipedia I have become extremely sceptical of the way newspapers deal with issues relating to science. In this case something very complex is being investigated by scientists, but journalists want a simple easy story. What I am saying is we should include Sykes research, and not what a journalist says about it. Alun 06:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do accept that Sykes is a reliable source, and also that he is undoubtedly a world leader in this field. When I get his book it will represent a reliable source from a wikipedia standpoint. In actual fact I have been following this for some time and the evidence for an Iberian origin for western Europeans is very strong, and getting stronger all the time. At the moment I feel a bit like I am battling on two fronts. I feel like Epf wants to dismiss the genetic work, because he doesn't like the way it is going (I think it largely goes against what he believes), but that you want to include all of the research as if it's concrete proof. This may be unfair to Epf and to you, but it's just how I feel at the moment. I've had a difficult day reverting Epf's edits to Welsh people and trying to convince him on his talk page that he has not understood a certain paper. Briefly the paper uses autosomal as well ans Y chromosome and mtDNA samples, but Epf keeps saying that only Y chromosome and mtDNA have been used. He is contradicting what is written in black and white in the paper. I cannot even revert his last edit because I have reached my three revert limit for that article for today. So I've had a bad wiki day and am feeling a bit under siege. So it was nice to get your message. Let's see what Sykes himself says and include it in the article when we have read his book. Sorry if I came accross as a bit aggressive. Alun 17:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology used by Wale et al. is totally obsolete. I really could gather little more than anything from it. Please contrast with this paper by Capelli et. al, specially with this graphic, that shows that English are intermediate between the native core (Basques, modern Celtic peoples) and the Denmark-Frisia area (but closer to the first ones on average).

Also, the gradation could be of "recent" origin (Anglo-Saxons, Vikings) or older (Maglemose culture, for instance). In any case only some coastal areas of the North Sea (York, Norwich) are neatly closer to Denmark-Saxony than to Wales-Ireland-Basque Country.

I made for my own use this clinal reconstruction of British of Nordic-Atlantic ancestry (based on the Capelli paper). I've uploaded it to ImageShack, so you can have a quick visual reference. Legend would be: Red is 100% Atlantic (Basque-Irish), Blue is over 50% Nordic (Danish-Saxon; Norwegian in the case of Orkney and not painted Shetland), cyan is 40-50% Nordic, and the rest goes on estimated 10 percentual points per color strip. Notice that this only talks of Y-chromosome (paternal) lineages. --Sugaar 09:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English people please do not use newspapers as citations for science

Please do not use newspaper sources for citing science. I have asked you not to do this before. I cannot understand why you have done it again. These are not reliable sources of information for science. You claim to have a copy of Sykes's book, in which case why don't you cite Blood of the Isles? I cannot accept these newspaper sorces as reliable, and indeed they do not constitute such according to wikipedia guidelines. I do not have a problem with inclusion of the work of Sykes's and of his conclusions, but please use a reliable source, for example the book itself rather than crap articles from crap newspapers, I mean come on, one of them is the Daily Mail, one of the worst newspapers ever published. I would also suggest that if you want to make reference to Iberian paleolithic people going to the British Isles by boat, you make it clear that this is a theory, do not say that they probably went by boat, say that they may have gone by boat. I also urge you to read the how to guideline on footnotes, this is the referencing system used in the English people article, and you should always follow the system an article already uses, your introduction of a different referencing system is confusing, and results in several different references having tha same numbers. All the best. Alun 05:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Personal Attack

Your accusatory statement against User:Dark Tichondrias on this edit in "His (Dark Tichondrias') continuous attempts to try and use this article to promote Neo-Nazi ideology...is disgusting...Neonazis come back " because it implies that the person you are directing your statement to is a "Neo-Nazi", making it against Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks.--Dark Tichondrias 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White People

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to White people, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You may delete uncited or incorrectly cited meterial. But deleting whole cited sections (population section) is considered vandalism. Thulean 13:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Almost exactly the same they placed in my talk. It's clear it's a concerted effort to take over the article.

Veritas, you may want to comment in the RFI that that Thulean has opened against me. --Sugaar 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:White_people/Mediation#The_particular_dispute_discussed_here, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Thulean 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:White_people#Thulena_position, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Next time I'll be reporting you. Thulean 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report him, LSLM. He has already been warned for harassing me with his bogus threats. This harassment has to stop. --Sugaar 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your repeated personal attacks, you've been reported. [1]Thulean 21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes report me too, I hope people will finally uncover you. Veritas et Severitas 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thulean continues to attack White people pages he wont stop he needs to be taught vandalesson.--Euskata 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Thulean's report does carry some weight. It does not matter if you detest something another person believes in, it does not justify breaking Wikipedia's policies on no personal attacks and civility. I don't want to see anyone in this dispute get blocked over these concerns, so please work on the mediation and try to do so without having to refer to another editor or another editor's beliefs in a deragatory manner. Shell ^babelfish 17:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Civility

Your statement on this edit where you said "I hope that some administrators can block this guy" is against Wikipedia's policy on civility which asks users to not call for blocking other users.--Dark Tichondrias 01:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to your friend Thulean who's been spamming all us with threats of block of his own creation. --Sugaar 12:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk page

I have responded to your message. I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 04:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:White_people#United_States_Census_Bureau_language, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Next time, I'll report you again. Thulean 23:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Civility

Your statement on this edit which you took credit for on this edit with the statement "Is there a way here in Wiki in which finally people with such horrible agendas can be banned?" is against Wikipedia's policy on civility. This policy suggests users don't call for the blocking of other users.--Dark Tichondrias 02:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your continued personal attacks, you've been reported: [2]

Thulean 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I know how heated of a dispute this is and I understand you feel frustrated with the process of reaching consensus, but labelling other editors and disregarding their input because of these labels isn't helping the situation at all. Shell ^babelfish 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shell: the claim is totally decontextualized. Have you read the section? LSLM doesn't talk about Thulean or DT's viewpoints but about an "alert" notice on stormfront.org calling to attack the article on grounds that it was being "vandalized". LSLM is saying how horrible would it be if Wikipedia was edited not from Wikipedia but from Stormfront (something that DT and Thulean don't seem to mind, anyhow). --Sugaar 16:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was specifically referring to "I openly accuse Thulean and Dark Tichondrias of Neo-Nazi propaganda" [3] and "Trying to be constructive about Thuleans attitude". Hope that helps clear things up. Shell ^babelfish 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that I have to give you the reason. But that wasn't what DT protested at. Anyhow... --Sugaar 21:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppenheimer

Hi I'm currently reading ppenheimer's book. It's excellent, he has a comprehensive iblyography and notes, and uses previously published peer reviewed scientific papers. It has a very comprehensive feel to it. I haven't read Sykes book yet, but looking at the appendices and index it doesn't have the sort of comprehensive or academic feel of Oppenheimer's work. Still we can cite both and I suspect there will be many areas of agreement. All the best. Oppenheimer certainly argues strongly for the Iberian origin of most people from the British Isles, though he mentions a paleolithic contribution from the Balkan refuge to England. Alun 07:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White people

Are you going to join in the mediation at Talk:White people/Mediation? I think you may be able to make a useful contribution. Alun 14:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The infamous block

Veritas: do not get paranoid yet. The policy is on my side: it was a totally unjust block and I am appealing. I still trust Wikipedia. I don't trust so much certain wikipedians and administrators but I have faith that in the end truth, justice and NPOV shall prevail. If not in the ANI, where admins seem to behave like a wolfpack, at least in first instance, in ArbCom. Policy is very clear and Shell Kinney simply broke all rules.

In my appeal I also ask for Shell to be recused from further cases against me or related to the controversial article due to bias and misuse of admin privileges.

I won't go back to that article at least in a looooong while. I've reached my personal limit with it and after all non-existent races are not my primary interest. I believe though that all this conflict will help to raise awareness about what is going on in that battlefield... (oops! article) and specially about Thulean's wikilawyerist attitude. Besides it may also raise awareness about misuse of policy by certain admins that never admit any error nor fulfill their duties.

Ironically Shell Kinney is running for ArbCom herself. Guess that her campaign is something like "Wikipedia needs an iron man and that's me" of Thatcher. I don't know. I'm voting a more promising candidate.

Enjoy, --Sugaar 07:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Veritas,

I would really appreciate your vote in this request for undeletion. I felt that an article related to "Spanish Gibraltarians", which you can find on my talk page, was unfairly undeleted. The link to the discussion on undeletion is here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_16#Spanish_Gibraltarians

--Burgas00 17:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Shell Kinney has opened an RfC on my behaviour. You can endorse either view or comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sugaar. --Sugaar 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White People

It is interesting to me that the black people article and the white people article are both suffering from somewhat similar problems; control by extremists who want to push certain agendas.--Filll 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White American

Could you please explain this [4] edit summary. I am German and sincerely hope those remarks weren't directed at me. Signature ^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mein lieber Brendel, Ich bin auch deutscher Herkunft. Mein Vater ist Deutsch, meine Mutter aus Spanien. Ich meine die Nazi-Germanisten, nicht die Deutschen. Veritas et Severitas 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, dann ist ja alles Gut. Danke für deine schnelle Antwort. Signature ^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basque genetics

Why do you emphasize that Basques are genetically close to Spaniards specifically when we are actually closer to Gascons and, in some aspects at least, closer to Atlantic Celtic peoples? The issue is complex enough and you are emphasizing a very questionable aspect that can only have a (Spanish nationalist) political reading.

~~Besides, Spaniards themselves are rather variegated: while some northern peoples can be pretty close to Basques, despite more Mediterranean or Indo-European admixture, others are not so close.~~

Oops, my bad. It wasn't you. Sorry. --Sugaar 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aditionally you changed the percentage of R1b from 95% to 90%. I don't think you have added any source that documents that and it's probably due to diferent visual readings of the same "cake". Possibly the truth is somewhere in between, so I'll correct to 90-95%. Ok? --Sugaar 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About your comments.

1. Basques and Spaniards are as related as you can see in the sources that I have provided. Neither less, nor more. The majority of Basques and Spaniards belong to the same population group. About 90% of Basques and about 70% of Spaniards, one up one down. By the way, taking into account that there are about 40 million Non-Basque Spaniards, about 28 million belong to that population group (the Rb1, or Atlantic one). Taking into account that there are about 3 million Basques, and that including the Navarrese, there are about 2 million Basques that belong to that population group, a ten per cent of the Non-Basque Spaniards. In other words, for every Basque that belongs to that population group, thre are 9 non-Basque Spaniards.

2. The 95% I have never seen. I have rather seen close to 90%. Anyway I do not think it is important to argue about that difference.

3. I loathe all types of extreme nationalists, be them Spanish, Basques or German nationalists: They all have the same kind of terrible and horrible leanings and a high propensity to lie and manipulate information to suit their agendas.

4. I am myself Basque on my mother's side and German on my fathers. I consider myself a Basque, a Spaniard and a German. And a lot of Basques like me consider themselves Spaniards, in spite of the fact that we have to live with the harrassment of one of the most violent minorities in Europe, the extreme Basque nationalists. Veritas et Severitas 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've already replied to this elsewhere. But just in case that 70% ficure is equally applicable to English, Portuguese, Occitans, Northern Italians (and possibly other groups). There's nothing so special in the genetic relation between Basques and Spaniards or French, both are partly "Basque" indeed, just like other Western Euros in ranges from c.50% (Germans, Italians, French, Danes) to c.100% (Irish, Welsh and Basque ourselves). Regards, --Sugaar 12:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basque people infobox dispute

I have made an "official" RfC, as it's obvious that we two alone won't reach to any agreement.

Would you mind exposing (briefly, sythetically) your position in (hopefully) a better way than I did. Regards, --Sugaar 15:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chino!

User:Gugershite= a Hopeless Faliuer!

Your reaction. My reply

This is what I was going to reply to your rather off-limits "protest" in the Basque people talk page but A.R. timely suggested better not (edit conflict), to what I had to agree:

Well, Chávez is also a Basque surname... you know, probably an evolution of Etxabe. Everything is related. Castile/Spain too but not more, not less.

And please stop crying wolf. With such an abuse of the term "fascist" we will end not knowing which are the real ones.

The Basque Country is possibly one of the most welcoming places on Earth, for those who respect it. Ask A.R., he's from Canada, I believe, but I've seen people from Mali saying the same. There may still be some racist people but you are talking to none of them. We just happen to like being ourselves and not just like you. It's not better nor worse, it's not even a matter of blood, it's a matter of identity, of culture, of traditions, of language... of the little magic that still permeates the mountains.

What we don't welcome is precisely fascists and their likes. You can read that painted in the walls: "Ni nazis, ni amigos de los nazis. Se acabó la tontería", reads just a few blocks down my house, emphasized by the drawing of a boot smashing a svastika. And it's not just words, as you can imagine.

And, finally. This [the article's discussion page] is not a forum. If you have something generalistic to discuss with me, you are welcome to my talk page or you can even email me.

... but please meditate a little what you're saying. I know that things are often seen differently from Madrid... but Madrid is not in the Basque Country, whatever you may think. Here we just have a different society and a different communitary POV, less affected by the unilateralism of the Spanish nationalist monolithic discourse. --Sugaar 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are bloody insane, some Basque towns (for example Getxo) have a distinct Irish Republican air about them. And the University of the Basque Country is both a den of kale barokas and often times witness and victim to their vandalisms or worse.--SanIsidro 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll ignore this guy and his PA). This reply is adressed to LSLM (re. what he wrote in the Basque People article talk, a bad place to discuss these things, I believe).

I thought you were from Madrid, but I'm maybe confusing you with some other user, also interested in the Basque theme. Maybe you just said you were "from Spain" and that's what I got things mixed up. Anyhow I know many "españolistas", including in my own family and really they never had any trouble other than maybe heated discussions and, in a few cases, self-induced paranoia.

My own grandfather came here as fascist volunteer from Italy. He lived all his life peacefully. His wife, my grandma, a local fascist (falangista) and a personal friend of arch-traitor Goicoechea was indeed once in danger of getting killed during the war but not in the rest of her life. My grandfather was a physician and died of natural causes at advanced age, never ever suffering even a threat, his neighbour Santiago Brouard was also a physician but was killed by the Spanish gunmen in his home.

You are accusing some of xenophobia, yet you are telling an euskaldun of English roots to go home. Doesn't it sound very contradictory. As I said before, in general the Basque people is quite welcoming with those that respect us, specially those that learn the language, what is kind of the definitive proof of Basquehood (per nom: euskaldun=Basque-speaker).

Think about all that. And please reply in my talk page or here not in the article's talk page. You're making a soapbox of this and not adressing the issue but diverting it to politics. Much of what you say is borderline PA (no, I won't warn/report you. Unlike others I think you can make useful apportations as long as you can manage to respect others' positions and try to see things objectively and not just passionately from your nationalist ideology). Regards, --Sugaar 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thulean/Lukas19

I see that you are one of the roughly 10 people who has had trouble with this user Lukas19 in about a one month period. I have noticed a disturbing pattern. Take a look at his talk page for more details.--Filll 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia for 24 hours by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Core desat 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are making a mistake. See it well again. Veritas et Severitas 03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, pray tell, makes a person "Basque" in your mind? Is it the fact that they speak Basque with fluency? If so, then by this definition you yourself would not qualify as Basque. Is it the presence of "Basque" surnames por los cuatro costados? Again, if so, by this definition you would not qualify as "Basque." Is it the fact that you were born in El País Vasco? If that's the essential qualifier then your good friend King could not be considered Basque. Is it subscription to a belief that El País Vasco should have ever greater autonomy or even total independence? If so, then some fluent Basque speakers of ancient Basque ancestry would find themselves in the absurd position of not really being Basque. So I ask you, with an open mind and without prejudice, who or what (other than the cliffs, the stones, the trees) is Basque?[I thought you might appreciate reading this message I left our mutual "friend" Sugaar]Saludos.--4.245.143.127 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Here is a link you might find useful.[5] It's an article by Stephen Oppenheimer about the origins of the British. I suggest you use this as an online reference rather than journalistic sources, it is at least written by someone who understands what they are talking about. Cheers, Alun 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spaniards as (just) Mediterranean population

When editing an act of vandalism in the Historical Background section of the spaniard ethnic group article I noticed it stated the following first sentence:

"Spaniards are a Southern European Mediterranean population."

I think that defining the whole Spaniard ethnic group as a Mediterranean population is simplistic and incomplete and that there should be some kind of better criteria to make that sentence more accurate.

I started a discussion on the matter, and since you seem to have a deep knowledge on lots of aspects of the article, I invite you to read my point of view and drop your opinion in the talk page. --Ravenloft 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting on this issue?

[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Psychohistorian]-Psychohistorian 17:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Those quotations you wrote on the Spanish Talk page are really interesting, I'm looking forward for your elaboration on the matter so it can make it into the article. It seems the Ancestry section will get a lot more enriched with those references, as the equivalent sections in related articles like English People, Irish People and other Atlantic Arc people articles or others in paleoanthropology are right now. -- Ravenloft 21:43 15 December (UTC)

Btw, yeah, I plan to do some work on the Atlantic Europe article in the future, when I have more time. By now I will only do some small contribuitions to it, but I think it could get to be a great article. It has a lot of potential section-wise: history, geography, envinroment, folklore, demography, present economic-cultural relationships and the archaeological-anthropological basis and relationships too. Let's keep on working on it and doing some research, and let's talk about getting more deeply into it... in the future. -- Ravenloft 21:43 15 December (UTC)

About the other issue... I think it would be ok to let it get colder for a while, keep the current reference in the article by now, and then next week we could try to discuss a good elaboration on the matter in a cooperative way via Talk Page, with the current reference as starting basis. I'll keep an eye on it. --Ravenloft 22:06 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nordicist claims

You are too easily accusing several other users of being Nordicists when you yourself are clearly pushing a ridiculous and unfounded POV that over-relies on a few genetic studies dealing largely with Y-chromosomes. You need to realize that the researches in the studies admit themselves that other Y-chrom. and MtDNA markers may be found in the future when methods are more sensitive and accurate then now. They also point out that the inheritance does not necessarily refelct full descent (they are only a small aspect of DNA inheritance, and only limited tests on some small parts of Autosmal DNA have been carried out; no studies on the very important X-chromosome lineages are currently able to be carried out, though this hopefully will change in coming months or years). Just because someone discusses aspects of race or ethnic origins from a certain perspective does not make them a "Nazi", a "racist" or a "Noridcist" and they could equally label you in a similar fashion. I particulary find your accusations towards Thulean to be very unfounded and unwarranted, though I have no read through all of his many discussions on topics of race. You also over-emphasize the link between Iberians and British Isles populations, especially in a modern context. The Paleolithic Y-chrom. markers are very ANCIENT and occur all over Europe, but it does not mean the modern European peoples are all mainly descnded from the same exact populations. Other migrations and settlements have gone into nations since then and the Neolithic Y-chromosome and MtDNA component in Spain is much higher than anywhere in the British Isles. We're talking mainly Y-chromosome (some studies with MtDNA) inheritance here anyhow and only one small part of someones genetic genealogy/descent. Of course all Europeans have primarily Paleolithic and Neolithic origins, but other waves of migrations happened after these and they themselves would mainly have Neolithic and Paleolithic ancestries. Just because the Basques and the Irish have the highest proportions of one Y-chrom. marker according to one study on some sampled populations, does not mean they are more closely related to each otehr than to other groups, especially in a more recent, historic context of descent. You are ignoring other aspects to their descent and in going by such logic, you would then have to include all Western Europeans the same exact people, which obviously isnt true. Other elements have merged into each population and the groups have been isolated and separatd from each other for thousands of years. You need to take the whole picture of the genetic make-up of populations from what we have so far, but with only MtDNA and Y-chromos to analyze, we can't make too accurate of conclusions, as the researches admit themselves, Y-chrom./MtDNA by no means indicates complete descent or genetic genealogy from the exact same ancient populations. More studies are needed on other remaining sections of our DNA, which happens to be the majority of it which has been untested. Other migrations and settlements have gone into nations since then and the Neolithic Y-chromosome and MtDNA component in Spain is much higher than anywhere in the British Isles. 69.157.107.88 03:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you do not understand me. About Thulean and the people in the white people's page I do not have to make any comments. Just see it for yourself.

Iberians and Britons have been isolated for thousands of years and on top of that they have received different historic immigrations. Iberians mainly from the Mediterranean and Britons mainly form Northern Europe. I just hope to come across people with a minimum of intelectual capacity to be able to discriminate topics. I am just quoting authors and books that have been recently published and which are of fundamental importance. If you do not agree with them go and tell Bryan Sykes, Stephen Oppenheimer or Spencer Wells and all the geneticists that are speaking about that. Not me. I am not going to discuss some of your assertions though, which are very questionable. by the way, those who are making shameful Nordicist claims are those in the white people's page. The authors that I am quoting speak of theories that have nothing to do with Nordicism. by the way, sign your comments, please.Veritas et Severitas 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[6] made on December 16 2006 to White people

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Also for blanking vandalism and incivil edit comments.

William M. Connolley 14:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evading Block and Obvious Vandalism

Due to evading block and obvious vandalism, you've been reported...Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#LSLM_-_Evading_Block Lukas19 18:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Please do not make edits you know are not appropriate for a wikipedia article, such as [7], and [8]. That just creates more of a problem for everyone. Please try to work with the other editors, and make cited, fair contributions to the article. I understand you dispute some of the content that Lukas19 has added, but replacing it with even more clearly biased material doesn't solve anything. Fourdee 22:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, whether or not you consider these edits appropriate and true, they are not cited and merely represent a point of view. They are not phrased in the proper way for an encyclopedia article, are they? I think you know these are not the right way to express things on wikipedia... Can't we work together? Fourdee 23:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

You know the drill. Please make constructive and properly phrased edits.

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

-- Fourdee 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sto pesting my personal page. Veritas et Severitas

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Cbrown1023 00:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am proud of being blocked for fighting radical positions that I find absolutely unacceptable. Some administrators should be scrutinized. Veritas et Severitas 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon edits

Hi Veritas, an anonamous user is repeatedly deleting the reference from blood of the isles and origins of the british about the iberian link to the british isles, theyve done this 3 times, without warning or discussion (i suspect a nordicist or something from stormfront), anyway i thought i'd let you know about it to watch over that page if you can and to perhaps say something in the talk page or report this user as a vandal. --Globe01 20:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, i'm, not a "Nordicist" and I don't have an agenda of any sort, and on the contrary it is you who appear to have some agenda of relating Iberians and Britains in a modern context with no verifiable soruces citing this whatsoever. The edits you enter have no bearing on the subject matter since the actual genetic studies quoted in the books are already cited in place in the articles, allowing users to draw upon their own conclusions and interpretations, and not the view of two or three authors that do not speak for the majority of academics. Maybe you sould get a talk page for once Globe and start contributing from a Neutral POV rather than making foolish accusations against other people. I find it amusing that you go to users known for repeated vandalizing and personal attacks themselves to "report" me or other users who you view for some twisted reason as vandals. 69.157.107.88 20:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

err not all users are qualified geneticists to draw they're own conclusions buddy, You should read Origins of the British, Oppenheimer has data where by he is able to conclude where genetic marker r1b originated before it came to britain using a scientific method, he dissects r1b into subclades all of which originated in either northwestern spain, north central spain and even south western france. He then notes that sone of these subclaeds aquire new mutations in the british isles and some do not aqquire mutations once they reach the british isles. Its not just r1b to, there is a subclade of haplogroup I1b (thats not a typo, i mean haplogroup I, then I1b then a subclade of that) which was present amongst the iberian refuge population and is almost exclusive to the modern day Basques, Irish, Welsh, Scots and even English. The maternal dna tells a similar story with haplogroup H, V and U5b1.

Of course we cannot explain all this data in the article so it is best to just summerize it in the words of a professional geneticists and author.

Please trust me, I am not trying to stress the Iberian connection, at first I was very sceptical of it, infact i did not believe in it fully until i read origins of the british (blood of the isles was unhelpful in helping me to fraw a conclusion), I doubted wether the r1b data was enough and took the same line of thought as you have in letting users draw their own conclusions but as i have explained there is actually enough data in oppenheimers book explaining where the r1b origintated before it came to britain in all its subclades, how old each sublcaed is and when it arrived to the british isles, and it mentions any new mutations on r1b subclaed aqquired in the british isles.

The same can be said for maternal dan analysis, (it is of high resoulution detail and allows one to actually prove when and on what route it came to the british isles).

Please if you have any queries or disagree discuss this on the talk page befor deleting info and ae can all come to perhaps more useful ways of expressing authors points of veiws.

besides that there is nothing wrong in quoting proffessional geneticists such as Brian Sykes, Stephen Oppenheimer and even Spencer Wells who comes to similar conclusions about the people of the British Isles, wether you disagree with them or not, if you can find a reliable source that has an alternative point of veiw about the origins of the people of the british isles or scotland ( using dna) then please mention it and we can add it to the article. --Globe01 11:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anon user

Ah, hrm. I'm actually pretty busy, tonight; if I don't get to it, it looks like you've already reported him/her to WP:AN/I, so I wish you luck there. Luna Santin 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon User

Just reported him, thanks for showing me how to report people btw, i think this anon user has actually got bored by now but let us still keep an eye out on the ethnic group pages for his unauthorized edits. --Globe01 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.157.107.88

Yes, I stumbled upon his edits by accident, I think at Welsh people and was appalled by the level and frequency of the personal attacks he has been making. I will keep an eye on him to make sure that does no re-occur. I have seen his wide range of edits. He appears to have an agenda, but I am not well-qualified in the field of genetics and ethnicity to tell if he is trying to push a WP:POV or defend against one. I will say that a number of articles that he's edited are the subject of edit warring which is indeed destructive to the articles involved and the broader project. Of course it always takes (at least) two to edit war. I will keep an eye on things to ensure that the three revert rule is respected by all editors involved. Best, Gwernol 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you think this is Epf? I think it is too. I am currently compiling a list of personal attacks, vandalism and warnings against this editor. I think it might be Epf, but also they have been blocked several times, and have also used sockpuppet accounts to get arround the blocks. I think I'm going to inform User:Guernol about this. This user has had a few "final warnings", but because they remove their warns from their talk page admins don't see the previous "final warns" unless they check the edit history. Alun 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish People

hi veritas, i'm sorry but i'm too busy in real life now to add citiations to any peoples pages right now from books, i probably wont add anything for many weeks --Globe01 09:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basque British Link Alternative evidence

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/abs/5201482a.html

heres is a link from the european journal of genetics basically saying that at least the irish basque link is paleolithic and there may not hasve been re-expansions from the basque country, i have only read the abstract. --Globe01 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Section

Cheers, yeah i basically think what you added to the australian section was very good and along the right lines, except that i wanted to add some anthroplogical data to back it up and remove the page reference. --Globe01 17:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on White people

Though you may not have yet violated the rule, you are in danger of doing so, having accumulated three reverts on the page already. I have protected the article page, so please discuss changes on the article on the relevant talkpages first before changing (and, for the matter, reverting). Thanks! --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off

I'm off because of this. I'm unhappy here anyway. You are an excellent bloke. Have a good life. Love. Alun 02:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lukas19

Lukas19 was also warned with the exact same final warning rationale I gave Wobble. While Wobble may be justified, the vehemence of his objections is not justified and is just as incivil as any remarks Lukas19 may have made. If either one continues, that user may be blocked. --Core desat 04:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ANI thread about the situation here. I'm trying to get other admins to look at the situation. --Core desat 04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Watch out for some users like Lukas

I've been noticing this too. I don't know anything about Lukas, but so much of the information on race on wikipedia is way far off to the right. No, "right" isn't the word for it. It's beyond right and in to the realm of the truly questionable. And the material is all over the places in articles where you might not even expect to find it. (Take a look at Latitude see the section on "Evolutionary explanations...") And when you start working on adding some balance you hit a stone wall of questionably sourced material with dubious references most of it relating to the simple idea that some races are not equal to others. LSLM, all we can do is be patient. I don't know if it's such a good idea to call out a specific user on a talk page like this either. But I wanted you to know I've noticed this too. If you ever need help, just hot my talk page or email me: me@futurebird dot com Hang in there... futurebird 05:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront

I never said those things and I was blocked for calling people like you here Neo-Nazis, all people like you coming from Stormfront were someone has been posting messages to encourage Stormfront Nazis to come here.

Can you give me a link to Stormfront so that I can see that this is true? The racist material on this site is so pervasive I can't imagine how else it might be happening. I'd like to know. Also it sucks that you were banned, but you've gotta watch your temper. Again, if you need any any help, just let me know. futurebird 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your posting of personal information of other users

Wikipedia's talk page guidelines say that posting personal information about other users which you believe you have done in this edit with [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/wikipedia-white-people-page-keeps-340624.html?t=340624 this link] where you claimed it was the Stormfront moniker of Wikipedian User:Lukas19. Wikipedia's guidelines about talkpages say that you may be banned for posting personal information about other Wikipedian users.--^DarkTea 01:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the link added some important context to the whole conversation. Who knows if it's the same user or not? Isn't it disturbing that stormfront is sending people over to vandalize the pages here? I just did some research in to their site and they really do seem to be neo-nazis!

We've got to keep an eye out for this kind of vandalism. I hope that you'll help by watching that page.futurebird 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it would create a better article if all the Stormfronters were to come here and work on it. Remember, Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks states that users' affiliations are irrelelant to their contributions and should never be used to dismiss their views. It further notes to comment on article content and not the character of other Wikipedian users.---^DarkTea 02:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's not vandalism, and as long as it is clear to the reader who the source of these opinions actually is I have no problem with this-- but, when people start replacing images and altering content 'across the board to reflect their personal view point it is clearly POV pushing. We could even use this link to the stormfront forum as a citation in the article to explain where one point of view about the meaning of the term white people comes from. Do you think that would be good idea?futurebird 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A published sociological source would be better. If someone were to go to their local library and rent a book on Nazism, Nordicism or white supremacy, we could have a reputable source for the definition of whites according to different groups.--^DarkTea 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More about Stormfront

Some comments have been made in my personal page and they should be public. Here they are:

I feel it would create a better article if all the Stormfronters were to come here and work on it. Remember, Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks states that users' affiliations are irrelelant to their contributions and should never be used to dismiss their views. It further notes to comment on article content and not the character of other Wikipedian users.---^DarkTea 02:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas et Severitas 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Civility

Your statement against User:Lukas19 in this edit with the accusation "nother of your big lies my friend" is against Wikipedia's policy on civility which suggests not calling other users liers even if they are lieing.--^DarkTea 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population Genetics of the British Isles

hey, i could do with some help in editing and mainting the articles Population genetics of the British Isles.

Luna Santin wants to delete it and he also wants to remove all the iberian connections and replace them with central european celtic ones. hes already done this with the irish peoples page.

He seems to have some sort of bias. we need to keep the article as neutral as possible taking into a wide account of veiws.

Your help would be much appreciated as i trust you well to edit these articles and you are a great editor. cheers

--Globe01 10:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDP_PPP_rank 9th is Brazil. Spain is the 12th. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Please, don't exaggerate the rank by GDP (PPP). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.15.77.62 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You know what nominal GDP is? Look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28Nominal%29

Nominal GDP is the one that you obtain according to current exchange rate. It is the one preferably used to compare economies of different countries, because it is the real monetary value of an economy in a country. GDP accondirg to PPP (Purchase Power Parity) is a better indicator for per capita income but not to take into account the relative weight of an economy internationally. I guess you should know it, since you seem to know about economics. Veritas et Severitas 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish empire map

I haven't removed the map a second time - though I edited out the opening sentence that comes from the opening of the Spanish empire article (the first part of which was my contribution a while back). Yes it is more informative than the picture of the fort, but now there are 4 copies of that map Spain, Span Emp, Sp People and History of Sp - which is unnecessary - and the picture was good - a picturesque landmark from the period being spoken of (by the way I didn't insert it). But really do we need that map on so many articles? Certainly in the Sp empire article and the History of Spain, but really that should be enough, I think. Cheers. Provocateur 01:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its important, - that's why as an anonymous user (Bill) I asked if somebody could make a map to help readers of the Sp emp article. There was much argument over the detail - but Albrecht put in a lot of work & did a great job. But I feel by having it all over the place is very heavy handed - & unnecessary, as anybody at all interested in Sp history will click on either the empire page or the History of Spain & see it there - how hard is that? The feeling I get by its appearance in so many places is that of somebody being berated - & that's not a good thing. Spain and its history is much more than its empire. I've done hundreds of edits - anonymously - to bring up Sp history pages up to something resembling reality and to integrate them with each other and wider historical context. But I try to avoid berating people if possible. I know there is a distinct anti-Spanish bias out there that see everything Spanish and Hispanic history only in the worst possible light - but the answer to it is not heavy handedness - and this is what I feel very strongly is happening here - a reaction to a reaction - and that is not the best approach. All the best Provocateur 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God; now I see Provocateur's piece and I am tempted to change my mind...how smart is that? it gets even worse: I added the map in Habsburg Spain! damn...I think I'll remove it if it is already displayed in four other pages (I can't see why there has to be a Habsburg Spain article and a Spanish Empire article, but that's another story)...

Anyway, I guess there are reasons for both keeping the picture and the map in the main article so either is fine. Mountolive 01:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as said, I think that the map is very informative and a good image is worth more than one thousand words, in fact I think that the text in the section could be shortened, but I leave it up to you, in my opinion the map should stay, but I am not putting it back again if you want to remove it. Veritas et Severitas 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you two feel that leaving the map there is worthwhile, well fine - I just feel its a bit much, given its already in other prominent articles but there are more important things to worry about. As for including it on the Habsburg page - empire was what the Habsburgs were about after all - Mountolive, I bless thee.... Cheers Provocateur 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC) P.S - remember a long time ago on the Spanish People page, when you were arguing as HCC, it was I who threw in the link to the "Long Duree" paper on the Atlantic Facade genetic link - just to help things along. Hasta Luego[reply]

Related peoples

I think it a shame that you deleted a whole passage in Spanish people without even discussing it, just because no sources where provided. You could have asked for them, or posted a note "reference needed", but instead you decided unilaterally that somebody else's work was not worthy. It is people like you with this kind of property mentality of certain articles that discourage me and countless others possible contributors from working in wikipedia.

Concerning what I actually wrote I dont know how much are you an expert on the subject. But if you know anything about it, or if you are Spanish you know that many of the points I made are undisputable and others are at best discussable and still a valid point of view that belongs in a well informed encyclopedia (note that in every point possibly pov i used words like possibly to allow differing view and did not in any way impose my theories).

Deleting statements that lack references is useful for obvious falsities and extreme viewpoints not for sensible matter-of-fact arguments. 84.90.18.136 18:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in your perception. The point is that I agree with you on what you say, but the point may be controversial for other people. Why don't you say Iberian instead of Spanish. Anyway, you can include it again, and maybe this can help you to support your point of view.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberic_Federalism

I am really of the opinion that Portuguese and Spanish people are basically the same people, separated by political events rather than anything else, so go ahead. I will support you. Veritas et Severitas 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know Hispania is the Latin word for the Greek Iberia. Hispania in the vulgar latin of the peninsula gave españa espanha and whatever. The state of "Spain" was a creation by the rulers of Castille when they acquired Aragon and Portugal. The first King to widely use the title of King of Spain was Felipe II who was the first king of all three in 1580: Castille, Aragon and Portugal. Before that,except for a few documents of Carlos V, the Reyes Catolicos were known as Kings of Aragon and Castille. They did not claim to be kings of Spain without Portugal. When Portugal declared its independence in 1640, due only to most of its Empire having been conquered by the Dutch with no reply or support from the King in Madrid, the King continued to call himself "King of Spain" since he expected to recover Portugal soon. With time, that failed to happen,and the King of Spain continued holding that title, and his realms where increasingly seen as "Spain".

The thing is, before 1640 forced them to define themselves in opposition with the King of Spain who failed to protect them, the Portuguese considered themselves and were seen by everyone in Europe, inclusively by Castillians, as a Spanish people. Before the golden age of Castillian in the time of Cervantes, "Spanish language" meant any dialect spoken by Christian iberians, including Portuguese.

The fact that Portugal is a different state doesnt mean that today in any discussion about "spanish people" they shouldnt be refered. French people in Switzerland, who were never french citizens except in the Napoleonic era, are still mentioned in the "french people" article. Swiss people are still refered in the "German people" article, even though their dialect is more incomprehensible to many germans than castillian is to portuguese people. If you had an article about Spanish nationality, then certainly Portuguese are not to be included; if it was about Spanish Castillian people, then also not. But Spanish people including Catalans, Galicians and Basques must at least mention the Portuguese. Maybe they are not Spanish now, that is subjective. Maybe today is better to speak of "Iberian peoples" since "Spanish" today is largely the same as "Castillian" language and culture. But in the past the Portuguese were as much Spanish as any, and that should be mentioned.

You can decide what to put in the article. I'm not even registred and cannot take the responsibility. Just wanted to make my point clear. 84.90.18.136 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population Genetics

Veritas, I am starting to think that population genetics is not a serious science, at least or the moment. Why are all these reliable sources (university studies) contradicting each other so radically? There is either a problem in rigour in these studies or in the methodology for data collection. --Burgas00 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Empire map

Veritas, I've replaced the map on the Spain page with an image of a galleon. You'll note that I've placed a link to the Spanish Empire at the bottom of the image - no doubt the vast majority of readers eyes will be drawn to this pleasing image (which adds to the article's aesthetics) and then will be curious to check out the Sp empire page & see the map there. This way we don't come across as yelling at them about the empire, as occurs with too many copies of this map in so many high profile articles. I think this compromise will work well. Cheers Provocateur 23:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC) P.S: I think the Hispanophone legacy map is the appropriate on for the Spanish people page as it is about today's cultural world and not a political map of hundreds of years ago.[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (LSLM)

Hello, LSLM. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LSLM, where you may want to participate. -- Lukas19 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for help

I hope you will try to help yourself in your RfC by refraining from objectionable behavior, observing WP:Etiquette and generally keeping a low (non-confrontational) profile. You will only damage your case by engaging in further confrontations. If you do keep on with the unreasonable behaviour it will be the harder for anyone to argue that you do so because you were taunted, and that you are in fact a reasonable person and a valuable editor. If you read the RfC as it stands now a lot of people seem to think that you are indeed such a valuable editor and a reasonable person - please don't make them change their mind. Helpful advice from a fellow editor. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must lament the contents of your post on my talk page. You cannot denounce anyone for being anything without having proper evidence for it, if you denounce people without evidence it is tantamount to libel. You cannot in anyway prove or even make it probable that Lukas19 or anyone else is a Nazi so stating so is a blatant violation of civility policies and general good manners. Having racialist ideas do not equal being a nazi, having white supremacist ideas do not equal being a nazi. And from what I have read I am not even sure that Lukas19 infact has such ideas. You are on very thin ice here and if you keep jumping it is likely to break. And we won't be able to do much to help you.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a right way and a wrong way to counteract POV-pushers on wikipedia. Using the right way which requires enormous patience makes it clear to all who is pushing a POV and who is trying to better an article. Using the wrong way makes you come out as the vandal and disruptive editor in the eyes of other editors. You are using the wrong way at the moment. I know that using the right way is extremely taxing on ones patience and sometimes, after working hard for a long time it is necessary to step back for awhile, relax, and come back later with renewed strength to fight the good fight the way it should be fought. It is well worth it in the long run. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me I understand your frustration - I agree with you that it often seems an unwinnable fight against POV pushing from a wide range of extremist factions. What I do my self is that when my patience grow thin I turn towards non-controversial topics the editing of which can be delightfully peaceful and relaxing. Luckily wikipedia has many negelected non-controversial areas where I can frolick untill I have regained my strength. Good luck to you - I will keep an eye out for those editors for awhile. I don't think they should be allowed to bully their agendas through. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Civility

Your comment on this edit with the statement "Tbis user should be banned once and for al" is against Wikipedia's policy on civility which suggests users not call for bans or blocks of other users.--.--^DarkTea 07:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Civility

Your comment on this edit with the statement "He should be banned." is against Wikipedia's policy on civility which suggests users not call for bans or blocks of other users.--.--^DarkTea 07:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this

Nature published an article in 2004 about a computer simulation that predicts that the most recent common ancestor for all humans alive today lived as recently as 3500 years ago. The model also predicted that all humans alive 7400 years are the direct ancestors of all modern humans. That means that all people alive before 7500 years ago are the direct ancestors of us all. How about that!!!![9] Alun 10:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, wow that is the stupidest thing I've ever read. What the heck was the simulation based on ? Do you believe everything you read ? Haha, it looks like you do. You are an idiot if you believe that and it ignores evidence that proves humans evolved over 100,000 years ago. How could a European and Australian Aborigine have a recent common ancestor in that time frame if its already known that those people have been isolated in Australia for at least 30,000 years !!! I hope you are joking about this you loser, haha.

This comment by permanently blocked User:Eoganan. Alun 06:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Caucasian race. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. John Reaves (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Portuguese propoganda

I removed the section from the Spanish people page because its not needed there. There was nothing in the paragraph that was an accurate or reliable reference to support any of the claims made and you also altered much of the information from the surverys and in the news article. Please keep your anti-Portuguese, anti-ethnic, Iberianist POV to the discussion page, not to the article, and mind WP:NPOV. You do not speak truth in this matter and you are angering many Portuguese and Galician users, me amongst one of them. 70.48.28.69 08:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you a Galician nationalist who does not speak the truth. But this is Wiki. Veritas et Severitas 18:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bright side

On the bright side, at least some Neo-Nazis can find their POV promotion too "stressful"! The Behnam 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Veritas et Severitas 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Be aware that a Requests for arbitration has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration Lukas19 20:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish people

I erased your recent edit by mistake while clearing up the article. Could you please reinsert it in the paragraph you find most appropriate?--Burgas00 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I guess I over did it. What do you think of my post on Hispanic? I hope you didnt take it badly?--Burgas00 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you must agree that Spaniards are not considered Hispanics in the US (by the average American). The misconception on hispanics is that it is a race, thus excluding Spaniards who are white. The correct meaning is that they are an ethnicity, which includes Spaniards. That is why all that stuff no viene a cuento as Spaniards would say.--Burgas00 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not agree at all. Spaniards are as Hispanic as anyone. Veritas et Severitas 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of thia lukas guy nor seen any of his edits. I hope his is not as bad as u say. Anyways, I only agreed with him after having a proper look at your source and its conclusions (the figures). I also noticed that you accidentally misquoted it. All good faith in my corrections.--Burgas00 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but lets try not to overreact. So far I havent witnessed any coordinated "nordicist" campaign on wikipedia?

Where are you living by the way? Am I right to say you live in the US. I am currently in the UK.--Burgas00 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact between the US and Spain, although I am soon moving probably to France. Kind of going around. Veritas et Severitas 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

France is a good place to live. Lived there myself for a few years.--Burgas00 00:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas what do we do about this 2006 genetic study? http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020143 I tried to find a way of including it into the article, without making it contradictory of any of the other info (which you largely included), but I couldnt think of any... Shouldnt the ancestry section just take a step back and accept that there are studies which point to different conclusions rather than try to find one by ourselves? Anyways, waiting for your perspective.--Burgas00 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM

The above entitled arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. LSLM (talk · contribs) and Lukas19 (talk · contribs) are each banned from Wikipedia for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked: Your account has been blocked for one year to implement the ban. Under the banned user policy, you may not edit under another account, and doing so will reset the timer on the ban. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Don't know if you come here anymore, but your ban has expired and you're free to edit again. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown people AfD

Hello, I saw that you commented on the deletion of the article Brown people. I found the article recently and also considered it unacceptable, so I nominated it for deletion. Could you please visit the article deletion page and cast your vote? I would really appreciate it. Thank you. FonsScientiae (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]