User talk:Mikemikev: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:18, 20 August 2010

Deletion of introductory section on weather and climate on Climate Change page =

Why did you delete this? A short introduction to what weather and climate are is a way to speedily introduce a reader to the concepts following and "sets the scene". This also aids comprehension and introduces a framework to make the discussion relevant. I would apprecaite if you would just leave it there for these reasons.

Xolin (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the mediation, there was no consensus to revert there.Aprock (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Race and intelligence, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Race and intelligence was changed by Mikemikev (u) (t) deleting 111441 characters on 2010-01-12T09:36:21+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

race and intelligence

mike - I just noticed that you aren't signed on as a participant at the race and intelligence mediation. you need to formally accept the rules of the mediation on the main page before you make any further contributions.

I am beginning to be concerned that you are more interested in arguing here than in reaching any real consensus. SLR has been trying to find a middle ground - are you willing to work with him to any extent at all? --Ludwigs2 17:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Ludwig went ballistic

Because he's in a HEAP 'o trouble! Read about that and and how Wapondaponda just got the entire mediation on the edge of being canceled yesterday HERE

I'll get banned as retribution for "telling", but WTF, y'know? All things must pass.

Hey, it was nice talkin' to ya Mike!

love,

-faye

R&I mediation

there 's a draft of an outline at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence#Proposed_outline. You have not yet commented on it, and I am preparing to give the outline to David.Kane (per current agreement in mediation) to enter a draft of the article in mainspace. There will be a review/revision period after the draft is entered in which any issues can be addressed, so if you have no immediate comment, or can't get to the mediation page to make a comment, you can participate in the review and we can address any concerns you still have there.

sorry for the bulk message. --Ludwigs2 11:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence, new draft

A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. I am posting this notice to mediation participants in the hopes that those who have not contributed recently to the mediation will come back to review and comment on the draft, and help discuss any revisions that need to be made. You may make any reviews or comments at the mediation page, and we will discuss any revisions that need to be made.

I'd also ask you to leave a note for David.Kane (talk · contribs) on his talk page. Whatever your opinion of the draft itself, I think he deserves thanks for putting a lot of time and effort into making the revisions. --Ludwigs2 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

You just deleted a ton of stuff from R&I but just mentioned Gould. Was that a mistake? Can we talk about your issues in bits and pieces? By the way, I would like to get in touch with you off-wiki. I am at dave at kanecap dot com. David.Kane (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is User:120 Volt monkey an alternate account of yours? Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R & I history article

Mike,

I would appreciate you being more involved in this article. I know you’re aware of its NPOV issues since you’ve commented on them before, and I think it’ll be easier to deal with them if we can have a larger number of users involved in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tag_team_editing_on_History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy that mentions you as an involved party. You may want to respond there to the allegations against you. —Soap— 15:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, if you want to start an RFC/U about Mathsci now, at this point I agree that it's a good idea. I don't have a lot of familiarity with how user conduct RFCs work, so I'd rather not be the one who starts it myself, but I'll obviously participate in it if you do. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something else you might want to consider, if you think it’s a good idea, is proposing a topical ban for Mathsci in the AN/I thread. I don’t think it would be a problem for you to propose this there, since Mathsci made a proposal about the same thing for me in the incivility complaint I posted about Slrubenstein a few weeks ago, and several of the other users who commented in it said that Mathsci’s complaint about me was relevant enough to my complaint about Slrubenstein that there was nothing wrong with him making this proposal there. Making this proposal about Mathsci in his thread would be even more relevant, since the thread itself is an example of one of things that’s been disruptive about his behavior. Rather than making any effort to resolve content disputes on the relevant talk pages, he generally frames them as user conduct complaints and posts about them at AN/I, and the current thread is the most recent example of that.

EDIT: Whoops, never mind, it looks like Ludwigs2 beat us to the punch about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI complaints about Mathsci

I have looked through the ANI archives and found some of the previous complaints about User:Mathsci: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. --120 Volt monkey (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "significance" section

Mike, you commented on my proposal about this section a while ago, but said you'd be taking a more thorough look at it later. Do you think you'll be ready to look at it more closely sometime soon? I'd like to add it to the article sometime within the next few days if possible, but I'd like to have as much feedback about it as possible before I do. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authority on Genetics

This is irrelevant at the R&I talk page but: Is Craig Venter and Francis Collins (geneticist) who mapped the human genome enough of an authority for you? Upon having mapped the genomes of five people of different ethnicities they stated that: "Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet." "When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart." Referenced in ( Brigitte Nerlich, Robert Dingwall, and Paul Martin Genetic and Genomic Discourses at the Dawn of the 21st Century Discourse & Society 2004 15: 363-368 and here[11])·Maunus·ƛ· 15:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more about a paper from a geneticist, not some second hand quotes. mikemikev (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R & I

For the time being I wouldn’t bother reverting the changes to this article that the anonymous IP is making, despite how obviously erroneous most of them are. This IP editor doesn’t appear to care about 3RR, so anything you remove that he’s added will probably just result in him edit warring to put it back. Both he and Ramdrake are violating 3RR on this article, and I’ve reported both of them about it at AN3. If they get blocked for a little while because of this, that’ll make it a lot easier for us to clean up the mess that this IP is making without having to put up with an edit war over it. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case

I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

topic ban proposal

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_to_topic_ban_Mikemikev_from_Race_and_Intelligence_topics. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom comment

I placed my comment within your section, to ensure you had an opportunity to respond if you want. If you don't want to, I will move it to my section. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. mikemikev (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR Race and intelligence

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your manner with other editors

... needs to change. Edits like these are childish tantrums. If you don't get your way, then you can debate in a civil manner. If you are faced with comprehensive opposition, you deal with it, you do not retort in this manner or you are liable to be blocked no matter what the merit of your original argument was. I doubt you will be warned a second time. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, as much as you know I value your contributions here, I actually agree that you’re sometimes more hostile than you should be. If anything, the fact that I think you’re valuable as an editor makes me more concerned about your behavior, because if you end up being blocked for incivility (and I think there’s a danger of that), it means I’ll be especially sorry to lose your contributions to the project. Remember that when someone is making a flawed argument, there are plenty of ways to point that out without insulting them personally—David.Kane is especially good at this, I think it would be helpful for you to learn from him.

Regarding the enforcement of principles like 1RR: I think it’s important to understand that not everyone is held to the same standard of behavior here. I’m not talking so much about the fact that Mathsci expects to be given extra leeway because he’s been a Wikipedian for a long time, although that’s a factor also. The more important point is that the less popular an editor’s viewpoint are (that they’ve expressed either on-Wiki or off-Wiki), the higher a standard of behavior they’ll tend to be held to, and the less they’ll have to step out of line in order to be blocked. This probably isn’t an actual policy, but it’s well-known enough that it’s been pointed out by editors who take both perspectives about the race and intelligence debate. For example Ludwigs2, who favors a 100%-environmental explanation for the IQ gap, has mentioned this in response to Mathsci here: “Frankly, if you were representing a fringe POV while behaving this way you'd be indef-blocked already. The fact that you are advocating for a mainstream POV goes a long way in your favor”.

As far as incivility goes, I think Mathsci’s behavior is considerably worse than yours, but Mathsci has the advantage of advocating a point of view that’s popular among Wikipedia’s administrators. In order for that to not make a difference, there would have to not be any administrators who allow their enforcement of policy to not be influenced by their personal feelings about an editors’ viewpoints, which I think is unlikely to be the case anytime soon. As long as things remain the way they currently are, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard of behavior than what we’ve seen Mathsci getting away with. It may seem unfair that this is necessary, but the alternative is not being able to participate here at all. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't disagree with anything you say, and I appreciate it. mikemikev (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read Captain Occam's advice. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Please do not do that. Not only you had zero evidence, but this is not sanctionable (even if it was indeed someone's sock). What he did was not even edit warring but editing towards consensus. That was someone very moderate, judging by my standards of course.Biophys (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I have filed a report on the edit warring noticeboard here Wapondaponda (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing for 72 hrs

Your edit here and reverts here and [12] were disruptive and without regard to consensus on talk pages. You've been participating in the prior warnings and discussions related to page edit freezes and prior blocks. Chosing to engage in disruptive editing at this point was an unacceptable decision on your part, particularly with the open Arbcom case.

I have blocked you from editing for 72 hrs. Please do not continue this type of behavior when the block expires. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vercrumba

Re: [13]. I would like to clarify that in response to email correspondance I called Vercrumba a fucking moron, not a fucking idiot. Thanks. mikemikev (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... The above is a blockable offense under our policy against personal attacks and our policy requiring civil and collegial editing.

I understand that you may be frustrated at the moment, but you can't be going around acting like that. It poisons discussions - worse so than months worth of griping and sniping - and makes it harder for anyone to work to resolve problems.

Please don't do anything like that again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GWH, I understand that my edit summaries were inappropriate and if you blocked me for that reason only I would not complain. However, you mentioned disregard for talk page consensus.

Here[14], you can see that my request for sources to be verified devolves into Ramdrake requiring me to find a quote from the cites stating the opposite of what it's supposed to support, and refusing to provide a quote supporting the statement in question. Also false and hypocritical allegations of IDIDN'THERETHAT, trolling, OR, "twist[ing] legitimate sources to try to make them say the opposite of what they're actually saying", and a claim that out of field scholars are more reliable because they are more "secondary". Is this how "consensus" is formed on WP? How sad. mikemikev (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, feel free to discuss anything any time. No one is asking you to agree with anyone, but you do not achieve consensus through combat. Jumping down the throats of editors because you take something as advocating a certain position (in my case, that anthropologists can speak for genetic biologists, which I have NEVER STATED) makes it impossible to hold any sort of conversation with you. If you don't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to some other editor you you don't consider to be a fucking moron. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I never mentioned the source of the commentary (you) at the edit you cite to let you know that I saw how you could misinterpret what I had rewritten as advocating something it did not. You respond I misquoted you, that in fact you stated I'm smarter, not stupider, than an imbecile. I'd take that to mean that the changes I made are insufficient, but I can't tell because you're too busy making sure you publicly insult me. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOU went public. Stay the fuck off this page. 146.179.212.89 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Mikemikev was supplied with this source (among others) from the NY Times which gives the opinion of several experts on the (non)-existence of biological races, he started "counting" opinions expressed in the article, to say "I count 4 supporting the statement, and an equal or greater number saying race is useful or reserving judgement." (diff here). Please tell me how this isn't OR. Similarly, when I provided a ref from Jenny Reardon supporting her contention to th same effect (here), he countered by saying: "From her other work it's clear she regards the claims as an oversight, from "anti-racists" quote mining and jumping the gun, usually with little understanding of biology." I then asked him to provide where in her work she said such a thing, whereupon he asked for additional sources rather than providing the requested cite. It would have made more sense to provide the requested quote to demonstrate his point, but his refusal (by requesting a different quote) sounds like he just made up the quote, making the whole argument suspicious. That, and his generally adversarial tone make it nearly impossible to have a logical conversation on the subject.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The source doesn't support the statement. You know it and I know it. You're a disingenuous POV pusher. 146.179.212.89 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call me what you want. However, the NYTimes source obviously supports the non-existence of biological races (as can be seen from the very title). And you have yet to come up with a ref from Jenny Reardon which contradicts my ref where she describes the same position (i.e. that mainstream science generally rejects biological races).--Ramdrake (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the last of time I waste on you. A) A new york times headline is not an appropriate source. B) Neither is Reardon. C) Even if she was the burden is on you to provide an explicit and unambiguous quote. The fact that I need to waste my time writing this shows you do not have the competence and/or honesty required. 146.179.212.89 (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for reason. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather die than be unblocked. mikemikev (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mikemikev. Wikid77 here. I came across your talk-page when reading about race issues. I'm sorry you faced people who did not understand how WP policies support what you have said. I realize the frustration when trying to discuss issues from sources. Many people think policy WP:NOR justifies refuting the collection of scientific information, but it does not. Even policy WP:SYNTH only rejects text when the conclusion is highly novel, because synthesis of other data is allowed: if you check a person's education, and count "he attended 3 colleges" then that is allowable synthesis because a person attending 3 is not a novel conclusion. With the race issues, people either think race matters or it does not, but at this point in history, neither conclusion would be novel (hello?). Hence, count all the data, run statistics, and the synthesize the heck out of the sources, because WP:SYNTH only rejects text with novel conclusions.
Anyway, I see your overall viewpoint: if people are trying so desperately to find reasons to contradict or censor you, then this situation is quite miserable for you. I am sorry that WP policies have not been more specific, so that people would not try to re-interpret reality. I have advised Wikipedia to adopt policy "directives" that specifically decide interpretations of policies, in very clear indisputable terms, so that spurious arguments can be shutdown pronto. Even a half-asleep admin could read "Directive 27a2" and learn, "A light switch can be on or off, and neither is a novel conclusion so WP:OR does not apply" (oh wow! now we get it.). Consider it as being "Wikithinking for Dummies or Dumberer" because, while not all of them are "morons", there are still a lot of people who can't understand what is original versus what is obvious. Wikipedia must realize: "Few people suffer fools gladly". -Wikid77 (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughts. However, sadly I think my "opponents" appreciate WP policies only too well. The policies are the problem. All they have to do is repeat the same crap over and over, ignoring the logic, any discredited scientist (Gould?) as a source will do, and the moment I say "no, you're an idiot", content ignorant admins will block me. Hence, WP will go to whoever is willing to repeat themself enough. Cheers! mikemikev (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple actions)"Secondary sources" is probably the biggest joke. It's really pathetic. I agree that admins should come down hard on wiki-lawyering before off-hand insults. But I'm sensing corruption as a factor. mikemikev (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 167: / Line 167: @@
 * Hi, Mikemikev. Wikid77 here. I came across your talk-page when reading about race issues. I'm sorry you faced people who did not understand how WP policies support what you have said. I realize the frustration when trying to discuss issues from sources. Many people think policy [[WP:NOR]] justifies refuting the collection of scientific information, but it does not. Even policy [[WP:SYNTH]] only rejects text when the conclusion is highly novel, because synthesis of other data is allowed: if you check a person's education, and count "he attended 3 colleges" then that is allowable synthesis because a person attending 3 is not a novel conclusion. With the race issues, people either think race matters or it does not, but at this point in history, neither conclusion would be ''novel'' (hello?). Hence, count all the data, run statistics, and the synthesize the heck out of the sources, because [[WP:SYNTH]] only rejects text with novel conclusions.<br>Anyway, I see your overall viewpoint: if people are trying so desperately to find reasons to contradict or censor you, then this situation is quite miserable for you. I am sorry that WP policies have not been more specific, so that people would not try to re-interpret reality. I have advised Wikipedia to adopt policy "directives" that specifically decide interpretations of policies, in very clear indisputable terms, so that spurious arguments can be shutdown pronto. Even a half-asleep admin could read "Directive 27a2" and learn, "A light switch can be on or off, and neither is a novel conclusion so WP:OR does not apply" (''oh wow! now we get it''.). Consider it as being "''Wikithinking for Dummies or Dumberer''" because, while not all of them are "morons", there are still a lot of people who can't understand what is original versus what is obvious. Wikipedia must realize: "Few people suffer fools gladly". -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 10:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 ::I appreciate your thoughts. However, sadly I think my "opponents" appreciate WP policies only too well. The policies are the problem. All they have to do is repeat the same crap over and over, ignoring the logic, any discredited scientist (Gould?) as a source will do, and the moment I say "no, you're an idiot", content ignorant admins will block me. Hence, WP will go to whoever is willing to repeat themself enough. Cheers! [[User:Mikemikev|mikemikev]] ([[User talk:Mikemikev#top|talk]]) 18:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
+::(multiple actions)"Secondary sources" is probably the biggest joke. It's really pathetic. I agree that admins should come down hard on wiki-lawyering before off-hand insults. But I'm sensing corruption as a factor. [[User:Mikemikev|mikemikev]] ([[User talk:Mikemikev#top|talk]]) 19:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)