Thanks for the friendly warning, Maunus. Maybe we could use an RfC or something? Or now that I'm providing an RS for most of the table, maybe it can stay?

Listen, I know how hard it is to edit with people you disagree with. I also know how hard it is to treat others with respect when they promote evil, racist, biased, unscientific viewpoints (or at least seem to). I've got a lot of experience editing on the religion pages, and you can imagine that there are POV wars there, too. Honestly, I don't know how I would behave if I were in your shoes, defending a minority viewpoint that I cared deeply about. It's got to be a struggle, and I appreciate all the professionalism and decorum you can bring the to process. In addition, I figure that you're defending the freedom and dignity of humanity against the evil of biological determinism (or something), and as a free and dignified human I'm glad you're on my side to that extent. It's too bad that we can't all get along and use WP policies to reach neutral, objective agreements, but given the subject matter it's no surprise that we're arguing, is it?

Also, I've changed my mind before on this topic, so maybe I'll change it again. If you can really find a good source that says EP is bunk, I'd like to think I'd be open-minded enough to give it honest consideration. Or even if you could identify the body of work that's being done that accepts the evolution of our social instincts while rejecting EP, that would be a real eye-opener for me, too. I'm not a lost case. I just need good sources. Leadwind ( talk) 16:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a POV war - I fully realize that the EP page must describe EP neutrally and not give a generally negative impression of a discipline that is quickly becoming an important part of the general field of psychology. The material that I want to remove I do not want to remove because it represents a specific viewpoint, but because it is not adequately sourced and it misrepresents drwinism by suggesting that Darwinism is inherently supportive of EP - while there are many other ways to put Darwinian evolution to use in understanding human behavior. I also don't have exceptions to your viewpoint, and I don't consider you to be promoting anykind of political agenda. I think you are completely misguided in your understanding and representation of wikipedia policy. I have edited many contentious issues, but few times have I been faced with editors who have so little understanding of policy as you seem to while at the same time being so agressive in their editing. The few times I have met such editors they have ended up topic banned or indefinitely blocked within a short time period. In ordr to avoid such a sad outcome, I encourage you to slow down, to pay attention to the information you are given about policy and its application and then to wait to include material untill there is a general consensus to do so. And for good measure I suggest you revert your last inclusion of the table which brought you into contact with the three revert rule. If you wish to file an rfc I'd be happy to endorse it as long as it represents the problems we are facing on the page correctly. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"I fully realize that the EP page must describe EP neutrally and not give a generally negative impression of a discipline that is quickly becoming an important part of the general field of psychology." Really? In that case, I apologize. I guess I couldn't tell where you stood. You seem to agree with Logic, who would dearly love to leave readers with a negative impression of EP. You might be able to advance the tenor of the discussion if you mentioned on the talk page what you stated here, that we should "not give a generally negative impression of a discipline that is quickly becoming an important part of the general field of psychology." Logic and Slrubenstein might be surprised to hear it, too. Leadwind ( talk) 15:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not really relevant as long as the one who is pushing a POV on the page is you. You apparently stone set on promoting your delusion that Ep is now a majority viewpoint even if no actual source states that this is the case. You are the one who is pov pushing leadwind, and I am getting VERY tired of dealing with your frankly disruptive argumentation based primarily on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and cherry picking and misrepresentation of sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The content you were debating on Volksdeutsche article was not the edit that I made today. I suggest you be more carefull with threats of sanctions,-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just added more references. Including page numbers is a good idea. Cheers. Memills ( talk) 19:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are you protecting the KKK article about how dumb black people are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.108.109.145 ( talk) 15:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not, I am probably the only editor currently involved in showing that the notion that black people are less intelligent than white people is mostly racist pseudoscience. Your attitude and indiscriminate use of profanities is not helping me do that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not "tone down" when someone is actively engaged in threatening other users in real life. Such threats are totally unacceptable - no compromise. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you realize that you were making a similar threat yourself? ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No I wasn't. I was trying to get him to show his true colors. Which he did. He's just a troll. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To me it looks as if you were deliberately trying to escalate the conflict and succeeded in making him make a foolish move. I don't think that is much of an accomplishment. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I made it clear that threats like that are against the rules, and I offered to delete the offensive userbox, since he can't do that himself; and I pointed out the hypocrisy of his supposed political stance. As a response, he chose mockery, and an admin quickly sized up the situation and shut him down. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you say is going to make me condone fighting fire with fire instead of water, or explaining our policies by breaking them. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think he was wronged, go ahead and unblock him. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't become less guilty because you are also guilty. Just as you do not become less guilty of misbehavior because the only one affected was also himself guilty. Now, am I going to block you for that legal threat? No I am not, but the only thing that saves you from that is that I am willing to extend to you the assumption of good faith that you were unwilling to give to Felixhonecker. I think I was rather polite in telling you to tone it down and that you were not helping enyone by escalating the drama. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I made no threat. He was play-acting. But if you think he was unfairly blocked, and that his userbox was just fine, then by all means un-block him. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

YOU were playacting when you made the threat - I realize that, and that is why I am not going to act on it. But what I am telling you here is that that kind of behavior is not helpful and that in the future it would be best for everyone if you moderate your behavior and quit trying to pour gasoline on the flames of drama. And finally since you repeat your comment about his block: Where have I suggested that I think his userbox was just fine? Where have I suggested that he be unblocked? I am talking about your misbehavior not his. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I made no threat, and it's perfectly clear that he didn't take it that way either. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear to me who have toanswer his e-mails asking why he was blockied for making a thing threat (that he removed before being asked to do so) and you weren't... ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

He still had a userbox threatening to report anyone he thought was al-qaeda to interpol, by some mysterious means. That was not acceptable. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I made no threat. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The ball is in the user's court now. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm just dropping by to let you know that I've nominated a page you tagged for notability issues in 2009 for deletion on that basis. Eniagrom ( talk) 17:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

When consensus has been reached by a group of editors ( see talk here) and a single user continues to unilaterally and systematically remove sourced content from an article that can be considered vandalism. A quick look at B. Fairbairn talk page (which he constantly erases) reveals that this user has been blocked several times due to his disruptive edits on several articles. Limongi ( talk) 14:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Humph... In the last two years of using wiki I have been blocked once. Not several times. Once.

With regard to my talk page, yes I do frequently erase it - because I do not want it becoming clogged with useless trivia, much as I do not want to have to read through subjective journalistic opinion in the heading paragraphs of famous people. B. Fairbairn ( talk) 16:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Saludos, Maunus. Soy Yavidaxiu, de la wikipedia en español. Allá hemos encontrado numerosos plagios realizados por Gumr51 en artículos sobre Mesoamérica. Artículos completos han tenido que ser eliminados porque constituyen violaciones a los derechos de autor, en varios casos fue necesario realizar una limpieza de los artículos para eliminar la información plagiada. El modo de proceder de Gumr51 consiste en tomar fragmentos de textos de diversas procedencias, incluyendo otros artículos de la wikipedia; con esa información realiza una especie de collage y de esa manera da la apariencia de un texto original. En no pocos casos, las contribuciones de Gumr51 consisten en añadir información sobre temas relacionados lejanamente con el que trata un artículo.

Gumr51 está activo en wikipedia en inglés, donde se refugió argumentando que la wikipedia en español es autoritaria y poco proactiva, aunque como puedes ver en su discusión en español, intentamos explicarle que sus aportaciones no se apegaban a los estándares de wikipedia. Acá sigue tan feliz, pero creo que por razones lingüísticas, a ustedes les ha resultado más difícil detectar los pequeños plagios de este usuario. Varios de los artículos que redactó Gumr51 en español fueron traducidos por él mismo al inglés, y permanecen ahí. En es:wiki seguimos investigando los aportes de Gumr51 para evitar que nuestra enciclopedia viole los derechos de autor de otras fuentes. Les invitaría a que hicieran lo mismo ustedes. -- Yavidaxiu ( talk) 20:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Muchas gracias por la alerta, le voy a poner mucho ojo. De hecho no se como es la situación de derechos de autór en traducción. No se que si el traduce texto de español a ingles si todavía se considera plagio o si se considera nueva aportación mientras tenga referencia al texto original. Lo voy a investigar, y mientras me guastría si me informes si observes algún caso especificamente problematico entre sus contribuciones aqui. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to get something like that placed on a user? Something like an interaction ban? I don't want to go through some complicated process (if there is one) but the following edits are bordering on aspersion and harassment. This user has been following me around from article to article, misrepresenting my intentions, purposefully convoluting my logic, and pegging me as a troublesome editor to others, doing nothing but hounding my contribs for the last few days, jumping into discussions I have with others and obviously trying to provoke me, canvassing users I've had disputes with before to come "join in the bashing", leaving "warnings" about my editing on other user's talk pages - presumably to get them involved, constantly referencing the editor (me) as a "user with an agenda" in my AfD noms, and now instigating a pretty obvious "baiting technique" here... all of it in an increasingly passive-aggressive writing style. Note that the only personal attack I did make (this one here), I rescinded literally seconds later here... and yet, this user has dug it up from my contribs and is aggressively pasting it on article talk pages where I contribute... in a clear attempt to discredit any point I try to make. I don't normally get affected by this type of stuff, but it's getting a little insane now, and if there's any simple way to just have him "leave me alone," I'd appreciate it. As you can check in his contribs, these articles are not in his field of interest, and he's only there to hinder any progress I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to point fingers or anything, I just want the wikihounding to stop. If my edits are "against consensus" as he claims, then I will simply be told that by users that are not him or anyone he intentionally canvasses to come disagree with me. I considered taking an extended wiki-break, but I get the feeling this would just continue the second I come back. Bulldog123 07:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would encourage you to take the issue to ANI and ask for an interaction ban for the user in question. It does seem to me that this is not within the kind of conduct that should be thought of as reasonable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I had noticed the Rfc about AlexCovarrubias, but since it was opened a month ago I had assumed that it had been closed in the meantime. Thank you for pointing out that this wasn't the case. Though it is disheartening to know that this problem has been around for so long without being solved. As an administrator yourself, can you ask another uninvolved administrator to look into this matter?-- LK ( talk) 18:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That is sort of what the RfC is supposed to accomplish, I have been opretty surprised that the people who have commented there have not really adressed the issue of his refusal to collaborate and discuss but are apparently more interested in seeing it as a person conflict (his way of framing it) - its a little weird when more than a handful of users have noticed the problematic behavior independently. Currently my level of involvement is such that I could not personally take or request any administrative action without being accused of "harassment" or being somekind of "Anti-Mexican racist". ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-Mexican racist"? You too? You should have mentioned it in the Rfc, I know I have. One just cannot go around tossing off similar accusation to everyone he disagrees with.-- LK ( talk) 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment. Exxolon ( talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus: you're not crazy. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, have added some comments on the issue.-- Raúl Gutiérrez ( talk) 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I opened a sandbox under my user name [1], and already placed an edited version of the article, please review and comment. I have found additional information and references, but will wait to see how it is coming. Thanks-- Raúl Gutiérrez ( talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I will have time to do this later in the evening. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, there is no rush. BTW, hope you do not mind, but will add a note on the above ANI notification.-- Raúl Gutiérrez ( talk) 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you made some edits on the article. The question I have is in relation to the pagiarism concern, is the text acceptable?-- Raúl Gutiérrez ( talk) 15:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the first page you created as you erroneously created a user page for a nonexistent user, I have moved my changes to the User:Gunr51/sandbox created by Thelmadatter. Regarding the sourcing it is problematic that some of the sources are impossible to identify. I cannot find the information you cite in the Encyclopedia de Municipios. If you link to web content you need to be able to link directly to the location where the information is found. I have not been able to find it and check whether you are paraphrasing too closely. This is the same problem with your citation to the FAMSI fieldreport - I cannot find out where you have found the information without reading through the entire field report. Link directly to where the information is found. Other citations like "gonzalez p 32" is equally impossible for me to check. It is good that you attribute the views of Grove and Pool directly to them, that is often a good way to do it, and here it works fine. Overall the writing is not very good, there is a lack of cohesion between sentences and the article becomes more like a list of facts. Some of the facts included seem of very limited interest and relevance to the possible reader, adn especially when they are not put into a meaningful context. A sentence such as "Soil characteristics resulting from archaeological remains underground provided information of the preclassical settlements." is not really useful to a reader, (and it does look like its been copied almost directly from an archaeological report, but I can't tell because you dont give me enough information to identitfy where you have found the info). The right way to use information like this is to unpack it and then give the reader the important information ni a way that is accessible. The sentence basically means that "There are pre-classic remains that still have not been excavated, but which can be identified by looking on the ground surface." The toponymy srction is also of dubious importance given that the only information it contains is that we don't have any information. I'll try to work with you to make the text more coherent and show you how tio link directly to the used sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Of more immediate concern to me is the disjointedness and lack of linking the various pieces of information into a coherent whole. If we work on that first, synthesized information from various sources, it will take care of most of the plagiarism concerns. It forces you to write in your own words, which is why writing teachers like me insist on a minimum number of sources, well mixed. Thelmadatter ( talk) 18:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you claim there is consensus on wikipedia to merge articles about ethnic groups and national groups when they linguistically coincide? I suggest you take a look at Mongols, Koreans, Russians, Serbs, Turks, Albanians, Greeks and the rest of similliar articles. Citizenship and ethnicity are two different things. What's next? Merging Turkey (bird) with Turkey (country)? Alphasinus ( talk) 16:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't have separate articles on ethnic Koreans and Korean nationals, ethnic Mongols and Mongolian nationals, ethnic Russians and Russian nationals, Turks and Turkish nationals. Turks redirect to turkish people an article that treats both the ethnic and national aspects of Turkish people. That is of course what we are going to do with Norway as well. Citizenship and ethnicity is sometimes a different thing, but not always - and usually they are closely enough related to be best treated in a single article -especially because ther eusually are not set criteria for membership in the ethnic group and only the national group can be well defined.. You will have to gather a consensus to change that well entrenched practice in order to be able to claim that Norwegians should have separate articles for ethnic and national groups. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

- Mongols, Koreans, Russians, Serbs, Turks, Albanians, Greeks are not about citizens. Some of them however mention these ethnic groups as nations. There is a difference between having citizenship of a sovereign state and belonging to a nation, like the Great Sioux Nation. It's amusing that you're demanding that i get consensus when the majority of the articles that cover dominant ethnic groups in nation states correspond with my view. You're the one that needs consensus. I suggest you take a look at Talk:Austrians#Major cleanup, where your friend User:Johanneswilm tried to do a similiar "major cleanup", like he did to Norwegians. Alphasinus ( talk) 20:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You really make your self look amusing when you don't read the links you provide. I quote now from Russians "The English term Russians is used to refer to the citizens of Russia, regardless of their ethnicity;" and from Nation "Nation has different meanings in different contexts. In worldwide diplomacy, nation can mean country or sovereign state." You're clearly out of your element dude. All of the article you link to treat both the ethnic and national groups - there is no reason that Norwegians ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC) should be any different.

- You're not quoting the whole text:" The Russian people ( Russian: Pусские, Russkiye) are an ethnic group of the East Slavic peoples, primarily living in Russia and neighboring countries.

The English term Russians is used to refer to the citizens of Russia, regardless of their ethnicity; ^[1] the demonym Russian is translated into Russian as rossiyanin (россиянин, plural rossiyane), while the ethnic Russians are referred to as russkiye (sg. русский, russkiy). According to the 2002 census, ethnic Russians make up about 80% of the population of Russia. ^[2]"

- Is it ok with you if i model the Norwegian summary on the summary of Danes, Swedes, Austrians, Dutch people and etc?

yes, what I am saying is that it doesn't make sense to have two separate articles for the ethnic and national groups. The two sides of the coin should be described together in one article. In Europe notions of Nationality and ethnicity have generally evolved together and cannot be meaningfully separated, although in some other contexts they can. Also please try tonot to buy into primordialist myths of ethnic origin when you describe ethnic groups, but rather put some more effort into understanding how ethnic groups are invariably the result of historical political factors and never represent actual genealogies. For example it is ridiculous when it says that "Danes" are descended from an ancient north germanic tribe. There may have been a germanic tribe called dani (although not even that is sure), but the "ethnic" Danish population has nothing in common with that tribe but the name and part of the territory it is located on. Modern Danes are descended from groups all over Europe, and Danish culture which did not really begin to form untill the 18th century incorporates elements from all over the world. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

- I've now modeled the Norwegian article after similiar articles mentioned above. I'm not sure what you had in mind but i hope you're sattisfied with it. I encourage you to take a look.

- I agree with you on the Danish issue. As far as i know Denmark was, like Norway, heavily influenced by the Hanseatic league during the middle ages, which afftected the Norse language and religion. In general, all cultures have foreign influences but they still have some uniqueness. I mean, many indiginous cultures in South America have been deprived on their religion, and perhaps even language, but they still inhibit some of their orignal custums.

- Do you think it would be fair to merge for example Brazilian people with Indigenous peoples in Brazil? Alphasinus ( talk) 00:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I saifd there are contexts in which ethnicity and nationality are not congruous. For example the Norwegian Sámi are both ethnically Norwegian and ethnicaly Sámi. Just like the indigenous peoples of Brazil are both Brazilean and Xavante, Nambikwara, Tupí etc. Norwegians and Danes are however not that kind of ethnic group, but rather a ethno-national group. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, there's a guy over at macrofamily who keeps trying to push a marginal position into first place in the definition. He's using a single reference in Trask's dictionary about it meaning a very large family to make that the primary meaning rather than the most common usage which is a "proposed, often controversial family of deep time depth", in other words, a family of families like Nostratic or Amerind. He also keeps changing the attribution of Campbell & Mixco's dictionary from University of Utah Press to some press in Edinburg. I'm holding the book in my hand and he's only looking at something in Google Books, so it's quite frustrating when these "internet researchers" are wrong, but won't admit it. If you could weigh in over there, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- Taivo ( talk) 19:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you are taking time to alleviate the disputes on the page but 1. Indefinite full protection seems like an excessive measure 2. it will be nice if you will post a sign that the page is protected.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie 17:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I will unprotect as soon as you are able to make a consensus. I personbally don't see any good reason not to include the abkhaz name. But I will let it up to you all to find a way to decide based on policy whether to include it. I'll post a notice that the page is protected. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not want Abkhaz name to be included because Mingrelian is not included on the Abkhaz language page. Yes, it is included on Abkhazia region page, but there must be a difference between a region and a specific language. There are many languages spoken IN the region, while the Mingrelian language page is for a specific language. I could go on and include Mingrelian on the Abkhaz language page as a revenge but what is the point? I simply find it unnecessary and it will lead to the inclusion of a thousand languages because believe it or not there are plenty of Mingrelians living in Russia,France, and other places across Europe. At this point there are probably more refugees out of Abkhazia than in.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie 17:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Revenge and tit for tat isn't really a useful approach. A better question qould be to ask whether sources commonly use those terms. If I were to read Abkhaz language sources about languages in Abkhazia would I stumble on the Abkhaz name for Mingrelian? If so it might be relevant to include it to help the reader realize that it is the same language. The same applies to the use of mingrelian term for the Abkhaz language - is it commonly used? Will it help readers to have both names in the lead of the abkhaz language article? There is also a qualitative difference between the status of emigrant Mingrelian populations in Russia and other countries and the minority in Abkhazia. What is the political status of Mingrelian in Abkhazia? ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thousands of Mingrelians have been forced out of Abkhazia so you can guess that their language is not exactly at the center of the Abkhaz "republic." It has no status. An no, when reading about Mingrelian language you will will not just stumble upon and random Abkhazian name for it, just as the opposite would not be true. If these propagandists have sources, I will love to see them.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well including the abkhaz name at all will require reliable sources stating that the name has currency within Abkhazia. A simple dictionary citation would not be enough. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question about whether this would help the readers - No. Including Abkhazia on Mingrelian on vice versa will have no effect. The whole point of initiating this edit war in the first place was apparently to bring Abkhaz nation and language to prominence by stuffing it in every imaginable place. -- ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I am out of my element in this context, and I am unable to see whether both of the sides of the argument or only one of them are driven by nationalist agendas. As I say I am going to leave it to you all to work out. I'll unprotect when there is concensus to do so or when after a reasonable time there has been no disputes on the talkpage. If I have forgot about this in a week contact me again. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. May I respectfully ask why you keep reverting the E.O. Wilson quote from the Rushton article? It is cited in a reliable source and Wilson is a respected authority on the topic. You claimed the reason you removed the quote was because it was not complete, however even after I included everything the source said about the quote, you still removed it, telling me to make my case on the talk page. I made my case on the talk page and gave you and anyone else six days to respond and no one did. I would really appreciate it if you could explain on the talk page why you still object to this quote even after I put it in the context you said was missing. I'm very concerned that the Rushton article is very biased against a living person and violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP because any quote critical of Rushton is included no matter how scathing, but highly credible less critical quotes are being removed. Mixaphone ( talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wilson is not a respected authority on the topic of that article which is J. Philippe Rushton - but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the general sentiment on the talkpage is that the E.O. Wilson quote is misleading when taken out of context, and that it should not be included. The article doesn't have blp problems as long as the statements it contains are attributed to sources - which they are. I am sure that you are aware of the fact that Rushton has received ample amounts of scathing criticism and that the article needs to reflect that in order to be neutral. Neutral does not mean that it supplies equal amounts of praise and criticism - but that it needs to weight praise and criticism relative to how prominent the two viewpoints are. If anything I think the article might benefit from a bit more of Rushton's own explanation of his viewpoints. And I think the knudtson book is actually a good source for that and it does manage to give a nuanced picture of Rushton as a person. I think it would be better to include some of that instead of more quotes. I realize that nobody responded on the talk page and for that reason as an act of good faith I am reverting my latest revert. If noone else objects I guess it can be included like that - I will however not agree to describe it as a statement of support, but instead neutrally word the fact that Wilson made the statement. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the way you included Wilson's quote. I think that's a good compromise. Knudtson does describe Wilson as a reluctant support but it's not essential we include that. We can just let Wilson's quote speak for itself. Thank you for compromising. I can see how you got to be an admin: You're very fair. Mixaphone ( talk) 21:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Lovely to have your kind comment. Too kind, of course. I look forward to continued crossing of paths. Keep up the good work. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning this edit I agree about Altaic, but not Uralic, which is generally recognized. Please check again and perhaps adjust?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that I deserve a block for five reverts but as far as I am aware, I am the only person who has received this notice thus far. If you look at the history of Georgians, you will see that the other two clowns have reverted many times as well. I take singling me out is a sign of your bias towards those propagandists which should have been evident from the beginning. If you want to block me, do so BUT block the others as well.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. I am singling you out because i didn't look further back in the article history and you are the only one to have reverted five times in the past 24 hrs. If I were going to block you I would have already. I chose instead to warn you as a sign of goodfaith, because I understand that sometimes in the heat of the moment you lose count. Don't tell me about what others did or didn't do. Nobody gets clean by washing themselves in the filth of others. Just tell me you will stop editwarring and instead discuss civilly and patiently on the talk page from now on. I do not have a bias either for or against Abkhazia or GEorgia - but I do have a bias against nationalist pov pushing edirtwarriors from any country - including my own. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have been doing my best. You can see that on talk pages I take time to write huge paragraphs of reasonable explanations and all I get in response are simple, one-sentence dismissals such as "Let us again: this is not Georgia's wikipedia" or "____ will be happy to have Svans and Mingrelians erased from history." They know I have no administrative powers that is why they have been harassing me and reverting back and forth. If someone paid attention to these smaller articles, this would not get this far. They come like this periodically - before they went crazy over the Kartvelian languages article - and I am very limited in what I can do.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie 07:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maunus!

I just tried to move Engke Khan, Emperor Xingyuan of Northern Yuan to Engke Khan, but I could not do so, because Engke Khan is already a redirect. This move is necessary for reasons of consistency: the articles on Khans preceding and following this Khan had "Emperor XY of Northern Yuan" as well, but were all redirected. (That I have spotted this is of course related to my second reverting at List of Mongolian monarchs. But the consistency matter remains anyway, so my request to you seems justified to me independently of whether or not my opinion prevails in that dispute.)

G Purevdorj ( talk) 10:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Post the same warning to other users and ask them to provide reasonable explanations. I did not start this and I cannot end it.-- ComtesseDeMingrélie 14:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who is removing data from a 1st class reliable source. You are the one who needs to justify by providing other sources. You are also the only one who has reverted 3 times. The fact that the UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages lists Svan as endangered is justification enough for inclusion - you have provided neither sources nor valid arguments for removing it, and you have not discussed on the talk page. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The UNESCO map is based on outside sources and there is even a section where individuals can request changes or updates to language status and data. They may include this under the name of the author who thinks it is endangered but they cannot use UNESCO name just because it is on their website. Dr. Kilimov and Odiani are not UNESCO experts. -- ComtesseDeMingrélie 14:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. The Red Book is the official list of the UNESCO of endangered languages. It is the premier source regarding language endangerment. Yes individuals who are experts on specific languages can have the status updated. That is completely irrelevant. If you have doubts about the reliability of the source either produce a better one or take it to the reliable sources notice board. Except that is going to be difficult when you are blocked... ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The text was not really sourced correctly. If you look at it accurately, it was posted as a quote of another study (as if it were present in an autosomal study from 2009, which is not). The Callegari Jacques study and its possible skewed results are explicitly mentioned in the article already:

[quote]According to an often quoted autosomal DNA study (from 2003) focused on the composition of the Brazilian population as a whole, "European contribution [...] is highest in the South (81% to 82%), and lowest in the North (68% to 71%). The African component is lowest in the South (11%), while the highest values are found in the Southeast (18%-20%). Extreme values for the Amerindian fraction were found in the South and Southeast (7%-8%) and North (17%-18%)". The researchers were cautious with the results as their samples came from paternity test takers which may have skewed the results partly.[/quote]

Now, to use it as a weapon to disqualify all other genetic studies is wrong to me. The other studies are valid, and they cover the whole population. This is what the User talk:200.150.38.226|talk] said:

[quote]Those studies are mostly with White Brazilians, that's why the so high European admixture[/quote]

That's a LIE! The aim is to disqualify all the studies, which I do not agree with. I have an interest in it, as I am Brazilian and thoroughly connected with the history of this place. Grenzer22 ( talk) 21:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I know it was not sourced correctly, but it is now. I have also moved it so that it only applies to the 2003 study. This should take care of the problems. Except that genetics studies still are irrelevant for the topic of race and ethnicity. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Every body here claimes to use a sourses, but where are the sourses which prove that Rohl "invented" the term New Chronology? Or any body else? Even Morozov who realy scientificaly change chronology didn´t call that so! Nither Isaak Newton! I don´t mean the "frase" ,I mean the scientific term and scientific use of it, which started in 1995in "New chronology, ancient Russia, England and Rome". Where are the proves that somebody else used the term not "frase" ??? What is realy important is all of you do not understand that scientific term can introduce only the scientists, while your "history" and your "historians" are in fact nothing but the publicists and newspappermen based in ancient "sourses" inspite of contemporary ones. You should know what kind of "science" do any of these "knights of the pan", they cook up whatever from whatever. But not looking for the truth. Arceology and C14 and other "metods" if ever used honestly, just prove A.Fomenko´s New Chronology. For example when there was only one objective, imprejudiced C14 test which gave "absolut" dating of Shrade of Turin in between 12 and 14sentury it consisted with Fomenko dating, then the same with astronomical dating of CrabNebula http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080217.html , beeng the remains of explosion of a star which they took in the past as Vithlehem star it confirms Fomenko´s dating of Jesus living. So i do not refer to terminology of historians-journalists collecting gossips and "frases" giving them scientific likeness, but to the scientific terminology. You catch? So what sort of sourses you want of me? My sourses are the books of A.Fomenko http://chronologia.su/ which I study from 12 years ago, go and learn! He is a greatest fundamental scientist and akademik ,mathematician, astronomist, first check they methods later read on. Every body hurrys up tu pick holes in conclusions of that SCIENTIFIC work but no one the METODS couse it is imposible!!! Everything what assure A.Fomenko can be scientificali verified, if not he himself says that that is assumption. Keep on rummage in this "historical" swamp, keep on looking the truth wathig TV, eating papers. Somebody here says I have poor english, sorry,I see the truth is less important for you than the style,but let me see how plentiful will be your language when you try to speak my language :) you will be not poor ,but ruin. Keep on and sorry again for my english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iljuha ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who invented the term - the fact is that "New Chronology" is used to mean two different things. Fomenko's NEw Chronology is one thing, Rohl's is another - both have scientific usage in different academic circles (except that Rohl's has a somewhat more currency than Fomenko's). I don't really understand what it is you want to change in the article about Rohl's New Chronology. You would have to be more explicit and say specifically what it is that you want to change for me to do anything. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maunus,

I've added a new comment here under Neurobiology:

Talk:Gender identity

-- Cornince ( talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maunus,

I responded to your comment. -- Cornince ( talk) 00:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel for you, I really do. You're a smart guy, you've got access to good books, and (unlike other detractors) you actually put good, cited information on the page. I hope you can take a step back and get some perspective on this mess. Leadwind ( talk) 04:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)