Your refusal to enter into discussion
Muntuwandi, are you going to enter into a meaningful discussion on the Negroid talkpage, or are you going to continue to disrupt the article with your constant reversions? Bear in mind, refusing to do so will be interpreted as vandalism if you continue to revert. --Nordic Crusader 05:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Request
Please to not give up because of one editor. I know it's frustrating, but your contributions are needed. Do not let someone's zeal push you away, do not give one person that power. Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 21:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's the problem, Jeeny, he doesn't contribute. --Nordic Crusader 22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back
Good to "see" you back. Keep your head up, dear Muntuwandi, and continue contributing to Wikipedia. But, one critique, use the edit summary please :). - Jeeny Talk 04:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
New User: BorgesFour
Just might be a reincarnation of blocked user User:Nordic Crusader. Just in case you might like to be notified. I'll keep an eye on it myself: don't want to add to your headaches. :)--Ramdrake 12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
improvement
Hi Muntuwandi, and thanks. Fred ☻ 22:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
about the Recent Single Origin Hypothesis page
Muntuwandi, your contributions to what I wrote are very good. I removed the references to "clans" because Brian Sykes' book "The Seven Daughters of Eve" minimizes the fact that the entire root of the mtDNA tree is African - as you know, the entire non-African portion of the tree is just a very minor branch, a part of haplogroup L3e, and we are all the descendants of one of the "seven daughters", "Latisha". In any case, para-haplogroup L is just the root of the tree, with major branches in L0d, L0k, L1a, L1b, and L5 (under which much further down is L3e), and these main branches all predate the Toba Catastrophe of 71,500 years before present. I did want to mention the idea of some archaic admixture though. It seems, from what I know from both reading the literature and from personal communication from the Univ. of Arizona lab, that every single human population has some small degree of archaic admixture: some genes on the X chromosome in sub-Sahara Africa, the HLA-DPA1 0401 allele in Asia with a concentration of 50% in Yunnan, China, MAPT and PDYN in Europe, and a new allele in Papua New Guinea. Of course, it seems that the African effective population size at the time of the Toba Catastrophe was no more that 2000 people, and that as few as 150 people left Africa around 48,500 years before present - this is the date from the mtDNA, and also corresponds to the Y evidence (the tMRCA for the Y is only 58,500 years ago). The remarkable thing is that for the Asian alleles of the HLA-DPA1 region, the tMRCA with the other alleles is as far back as 1.9 million years ago with a very large number of SNPs (14) in common with black-tailed gibbons but not with other humans - a clear sign of admixture with Homo erectus. One could speculate that the chromosome 1 head to head fusion of two chimpanzee / bonobo and other great ape chromosomes 1a and 1b took place right at the time of the advent of Homo habilis, 2.4 million years ago, and therefore erectus and everything later than that was interfertile with anatomically modern humans, because erectus had 23 and not 24 pairs of chromosomes, just as we do. All of this has no implications regarding any one group vs. any other. All of us are equally closely related, merely a single tribe of Bushmen, with an equally small amount of archaic admixture here and there. Also, this didn't seem to affect how people look at all: The highest concentration of the archaic HLA antigen allele on Chromosome 6 is found among the matrilineal Naxi around Lugu Lake in Yunnan, at a rate of 50%, and if you look at photos of these women they look exactly like any other women from China (and American Indians, just as other Asians, carry this allele at a much lower percentage). Also, it turns out (from a major article in the journal Nature in the fall of 2006) that the final separation from chimpanzees and bonobos took place as recently as 4 million years ago (from evidence on the X chromosome). This moves forward the dating of the mtDNA tree by 33% (and from 40% if you use the formerly accepted date of 7 million years). This would imply that chimpanzees and bonobos were interfertile with Australopithecus africanus, and the we humans directly have chimpanzee / bonobo ancestry in addition to "Lucy". A quite remarkable finding. Keep up the good work. You might want to search for some of these papers in PubMed, and read them, and also mention this in this article. This isn't at all the Multiregional Hypothesis, just a lack of a fully complete replacement after modern humans evolved recently in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeogenetics (talk • contribs)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Michael Loren Mauldin, by 66.82.9.105 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Michael Loren Mauldin fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Michael Loren Mauldin, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Merger?
Muntuwandi, I seen your message and if you'd like to make a merger, go ahead, I don't think anyone will object.. In the meantime, can you please, please keep an eye on that page (whenever you can, since I know you're busy).. There is a wikistalker now, going around merely trying to revert whatever I do or what ever sources reports on Egypt's Africanity. Namely the user Lanternix.. The evil greek guy is being unreasonable as well.. OMG, he did it again.. Can you please revert this guy when you get the chance?Taharqa 17:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind for now, the page is protected.. It would also be great if you can join the discussion as it seems people are taking liberty to make unsupported charges of "afrocentrism" in the article without specifying. Which is all too convenient for any biased ideologically-driven person to do and I'm tired of entertaining stuff like that..Taharqa 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for edit warring
You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Race and intelligence. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you wish to request review of this decision, you may place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Muntuwandi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I request a review the edits that are said to be in violation of the 3rr rule have been
For example Fourdee, the user who nominated me for violating the 3RR, is quoted in the edit summary as saying
- not cited, doesn't even really make sense, fabricated afro-propaganda removed Revision as of 16:43, 2 August 2007 by
- however Revision as of 16:44, 2 August 2007 and Revision as of 16:46, 2 August 2007 by Muntuwandi, in these revisions I have added the citations which Fourdee has requested.
If they are not easily apparent view this diff of cumulative edits to see that . The {{Fact|date=August 2007}} is replaced with the following references
- http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/Encarta/overview.htm
- http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
and links to other wikipedia article. Does adding citations constitute a revert.
- No editor warned me that I was close to violating the 3RR on this occasion. The warning that I received was from the 15th of July is not related to this article or dispute but to another unrelated dispute. This warning is taken out of context because the reverts on the page were to remove vandalism. The user in question User_Talk:Nordic Crusader has been subsequently banned for adding inflammatory and racist material to the Negroid article. I was removing his material until the Admins had him blocked. I therefore believe my nomination for 3RR violation is in bad faith.
Decline reason:
Your request is too confused. Please be more succinct. — Sandstein 10:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm concerned that Muntuwandi still does not understand WP:3RR or the very limited possible exceptions to it. We are not to undo the actions of other editors on any one article, in whole or in part, more than 3 times in 24 hours, nor are we to engage in a habit of reverting other editors on an article day after day, even if it is not more than 3 times per day. Restoring material and adding citations is still restoring it. Only blatant vandalism or WP:BLP violations might be an exception to the 3RR. The warning is evidence that at least in principle you are aware of the 3RR. Please avoid engaging in edit wars with other users and especially limit the number of times you will revert other editors in any day. To keep restoring (or deleting) the same material over and over again is just not how we would like to edit articles. It's better to work it out on the talk page. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Species integration nominated for deletion
As someone who has commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.
The new nomination/discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration.
Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for continuisly helping me remove the original research from human height. Cheers. 124.168.39.104 12:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
About the article Race and Intelligence
If you're still actively editing, can you e-mail me here? Thanks!--Ramdrake 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
White People Article
Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as White People. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.36.79 (talk • contribs)
- Are you Hayden/Nordic Crusader? Weird that you've both been blocked and now editing the same article again under New Zealand IPs, and accusing others of ownership. Also reverting other's edits. - Jeeny Talk01:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Most probably Hayden/Nordic Crusader. If he continues we will have to request semi-protection. Muntuwandi 01:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Muntuwandi, about your editing on White people, you obviously have some passion and knowledge about that topic, so I want to ensure your passion is well-directed towards appropriate editing. First, two pillars of Wikipedia are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:No original research (OR). NPOV guides us to make sure all articles are neutrally written and worded, and without bias. This is not to say that we route out bias present in the discourse related to a topic or the scientific research about it. After all, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Instead, we should represent the scientific, political, anthropological, and social facts and discussions about "white people" as faithfully as possible. There is a significant body of scholarship indicating race is bunk and meaningless as a scientific concept or a firm category. At the same time, race has significant social and political consequences in many countries because people do categorize themselves and others by skin color and more complex markers of race. As to one issue, characterizing Barack Obama as white at the head of the article is pushing it [1], and doing so without any references is original research. I think we both know the reality is that Obama is multiracial, and not white as the term is widely understood.
A related issue is proper use of edit summaries. Edit summaries such as this and this are not acceptable because they are uncivil and the referenced behavior does not clearly constitute trolling. Please use neutral edit summaries. For those edits, an appropriate summary is "comment" or "comment in response to KarenAER", etc.--Chaser - T 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)- Those are automated edit summaries from the section head which was created by KarenAER , I recognize that I have a weakness for using edit summaries, many editors have already advised me. I'll try to remember. The addition of Barack Obama was by User:Godongwana and I had reverted an edit to this version, I have no opinion on the inclusion of barack obama's picture at this point. And I am not a sock of User:Godongwana, you can perform a checkuser to confirm, we were editing at the same time and I do not know his/her location. If we agree on a few edits it is coincidental. Muntuwandi 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, accusing someone of trolling in an edit summary is confrontational; better to avoid them altogether if that's what the automatic tools do. I'm not a checkuser, so I can't do that. It should be declined or checked within a few days. Do you know Godongwana in real life? Whoever he/she is, the editing suggests he's been around before.--Chaser - T 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- The accuser was KarenAER. I do not know who Godongwana is. Muntuwandi 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, accusing someone of trolling in an edit summary is confrontational; better to avoid them altogether if that's what the automatic tools do. I'm not a checkuser, so I can't do that. It should be declined or checked within a few days. Do you know Godongwana in real life? Whoever he/she is, the editing suggests he's been around before.--Chaser - T 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep it up
AN/I
FYI, [2] KarenAER 22:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Image for Hamitic Section
Would you make a collage for the citation I found for the Hamitic section on this edit?----DarkTea 08:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- jeez, don't encourage him with those things --Cape Colony Kaffir 11:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Pattern of original research, POV pushing and original research
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.
Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.
-- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)