Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice work on Vedas. Cheers! --maveric149

Thanks for your copyedit work - I have added more text. Cautious 17:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've said you're not happy with what you ended up with on Rape#Victim blaming. I think your edits are moving things in a good direction, and I encourage you to do more.

You were quite perceptive in saying the section read to be more about false reporting than about victim blaming; what happened is that an anonymous editor created a section in the article about false reporting and overreporting, which had some very dodgy material (like claiming that Dr. Eugene Kanin's research showed 41% of all rape reports to be false). A second anon came along and radically revised the section to be more about victim blaming than false reporting, essentially writing from the POV that false reporting did not occur and it was only victim blaming that made people think it occurred. I stepped in, separated the material on victim blaming into a section of its own, cut out a lot of the dodginess from both sides from the false reporting section, and did some research to expand the section and address what we do and don't know about it.

Unfortunately, the second anon keeps returning every 2-4 weeks, always under a new IP address, and keeps editing those two sections to suit his/her POV that false reporting does not occur and even if it does it's a small insignificant problem and anyone who disagrees is clearly victim blaming -- this is the reason for a passage that you removed:

Due to the wide spread persecution of rape victims, false reporting is often discounted by those who prefer not to believe in it, as not an effective means of gaining the false reporter's desired ends. This ignores the fact that criminal decisions are often unwise decisions, and people still choose to make them anyways.

That passage went in because our anon (who never responds to the Talk page) responded to the passage where Dr. Kanin reports that women who had admitted making false rape reports said they did so for an alibi, for revenge, or for attention/sympathy, with "Obviously this is not the case considering there is very sparse sympathy for rape survivors in the criminal justice system." -- arguing, again, that false reports just don't happen, and that this is "proven" by the logic that if they did it for sympathy, they wouldn't get it from the criminal justice system, so "obviously" no one ever does it, ever, for this motive or any other.

I'm happy to see someone taking on that section; it's badly in need of attention and unfortunately the only volunteer before you was our ax-grinding anon. It's good to see it in better hands. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ref.: your edits at Palladian architecture: you are of course quite right, Palladianism spread by returning architects and British influence. The article has been hugely edited since it became main page today, if you go back about 10,000 edits to yesterday you will see someone has removed a sentence which explained why I called it true palladianism, ie True P is only there to explain the initial principles. Having reverted 4 edits already earlier today, I thought I would leave the rest until the page is yesterday's news, and then sort out what to keep, if there is anything of the original left that is! Giano 12:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

I enjoyed your Alfred Elmore article, thanks for taking a red link off the List of Irish artists! Notjim 11:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If that image is from the Egyptian museum, it is copyright, however its use may be possible under fair use laws. Could you explain the copyright status on the image description page. I've listed it as "unknown" for now — Zeimusu | Talk 03:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am having trouble with a simonP. I edit Arete (virtue) and he immediately reverts the edits. Him and his friends have deleted [Classical definition of republic] and after the many facts and the quoting of material they will not acknowledge they won't even let an external link and the talk is ongoing at Talk:Republic. This man doesn't know what he is doing. I ask that someone step in and stop this please. This man has no expertise in the classical field. He is an anonymous user. Please see also Talk:Arete (virtue).WHEELER 17:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You did a good job on [Semitic]. Paulr 18:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed a bit chaotic. It needed the subheads too. Good idea. Paul B 19.01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Paul, did you notice I replied to you on Talk:Shakespeare's reputation? Bishonen | Talk 13:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Yes. I did. I'm just checking up on a few facts before adding anything. Paul B 13:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the whole concern about the Mediterranean and Alpines comes within Nordic theory as a whole (that is, there isn't a separate Alpine theory), and most of the show is about those people who are concerned with the Nordics anyway. I consolidated them because it didn't seem necessary to duplicate the information in three separate articles. If you want to undo that, you're welcome to, but I just find it unlikely that we need a whole article on the concept of the "Alpine race" since it doesn't come up except in the context of Nordic theory. I've never see the triple division in any context other than Nordicism, but if you feel otherwise, you're welcome to edit it; it is not as if the other articles had a lot of lengthy text that will be difficult to recover.

As for Grant; he certainly didn't come up with Nordic theory on his own, of course not, but he was certainly its most powerful and influential advocate. He's the reason it had any real influence on anything, intellectually or politically, and his variety of it (which is somewhat distinct from that of people like Ripley) is what became prominent. This has been documented in a number of places, including the source I cited. If people are looking up "Nordic theory" or "Nordic race," they are probably looking it up in reference to the version of it he pushed.

Grant attributed all success of other races to influxes of Nordicism. This is made quite clear in Passing in his chapters on the Alpines, Med., and Nordics, and "Expansion of the Nordics" where he describes how everybody successful in Egypt, Italy, etc. was actually Nordic, and describes the Nordic invasions, etc. I don't think I'm oversimplifying too much.

So anyway.. if you want to reinstate, feel free. However I don't think its necessary to have three separate articles. Explaining what the "Alpine race" was out of the context of 20th century interpretation of Nordic theory is quite silly, and if you're going to go through the trouble of explaining it you might as well have it in one article so you aren't duplicating material unnecessarily. But that's just my opinion, you're welcome to do as you please with it, it is not my highest concern, I just thought it was a better arrangement, that's all. --Fastfission 13:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you added a huge block of duplicated text on Talk:Afrocentrism with this edit (about 70% of the page). Please, all, be careful in doing edits - we have seen this problem on a number of pages recently. It's always wise (even on talk pages!) to do a diff on your edit, after it's done, to make sure that what actually happened was what you thought you did. Use of the "section edit" feature also helps (and makes editing faster, to boot :-). Noel (talk) 15:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Nice to read your sensitive and knowledgeable additions. --Wetman 15:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 00:05, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you on his talk page. See User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee for some background and the history of his talk page (versions just before the anon sockpuppet blankings). Would you too like to join the Roylee Watching Club?  ;) Cheers, BanyanTree 14:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for inviting me to join this exclusive club! Yes, I've seen the exchanges between Mark and Roylee, and looked at some of Roylee's other edits. His Afrocentric inclinations are apparent. Since I monitor the Afrocentrism page itself, I'm half-expecting a visit from him soon. Paul B 14:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to BanyanTree before, I think that things like this really touch Wikipedia in its weakest spot — so thanks for keeping watch, Paul! Kind regards, — mark ✎ 20:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Jguk for background info on what is currently going on in regards to the problems with anti-BCE/CE users like Jguk and their antagonism towards editorial consensus within specific articles and categories. SouthernComfort 20:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for what is happening on your articles, where a small number of editors have chosen to apply a failed proposal, only to have it reverted. I appreciate it does WP no good - and I trust that soon the ArbCom will rule those initiating these disputes to stop. Kind regards, jguk 11:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the title of The Hireling Shepherd. Rl 12:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, when I added that NPOV tag, I wasn't attacking you personally. I'll definitely recognise that you are an expert in this field! However, like anything, if you write something you need to make sure that you follow Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms and Wikipedia:Cite sources. We most definitely frown upon words like "some scholars say". Not that I would ever do this, but I could also do the same thing in the article. I could say something totally unreasonable and offensive to your POV and qualify it with "Some scholars say...". How would that be fair or reasonable?

I want to emphasise that I'm not going to get in your way in editing this article. What I would like to see is a better references, more NPOV article! That is my sole concern, and I'm a little disappointed that you think otherwise of me.

I'd also like to apologise in advance if I've caused offense or implied that you are a terrible writer. That has never been my intention. I focus on the content alone, and while the article is extremely factual, it still needs improvement. For instance, the use of Template:Ref and Template:Note would go a long way to fixing verifiability issues. Anyway, I hope you understand my purpose of using the NPOV tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, given that you are still making personal comments about myself and also given that you still seem to think that asking about POV statements is a personal attack against yourself, can I ask if you actually bothered to read my message above? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read it yes. And have explained repeatedly what I was attacking - the tone of your initial comments and the assertion of "POV" before acquainting yourself with the subject. Useful comments, IMO, do not take the form of your interventions were were almost bound to have a negative effect because their over-excited and judgemental tone. Paul B 09:22, 12 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, whatever. You were attacking me (calling me ignorant for one thing is not pleasant). You read into the situation, and you are wrong. Though the irony of your own judgemental remarks never ceases to amaze me. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent me. I said you appeared to be so ignorant of the subject that it was difficult to discuss meaningfully was is and isn't NPOV in this case. Of course I assume I too am ignorant of many subjects, including some in which you may be very knowldgable. Paul B 12:06, 12 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't misrepresent me Paul! I never would have taken out information (except of course that first bit I mentioned), my reading of the weasel words guidleline has served us very well. As for my ultra-aggressive and arrogant tone: why don't I just leave the project if you feel that I'm such an arrogant twat? I mean, obviously I was trying to wreck the Zoroastrianism article: pointing out issues that I find with an article, after all, is such a terrible, censoring action to take. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Due to my apparently disgusting behaviour, I have decided that possibly I might owe someone an apology. I have taken myself to an open forum to find out. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Query about my behaviour. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What the? You wrote:

"Quoting of rules, guidelines etc is not done by objective Pan-Dimensional Beings. It is done by people with POVs, because they feel strongly about particular positions. The demand for NPOV is often in practice motived by resistance to one POV or the desire to promote another one. It is hardly a coincidence that you, Guy Montag and "Ta bu shi da yu" have been challenging particular passages and insisting on references is it? This is surely the very problem of systemic bias. People with strong religious opinions tend to be very committed to promoting or defending those views."

Excuse me, but that is totally unfair. I'm beginning to think that you are deliberately reading into my actions to make me look bad! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Why don't you have a look at Jihad to see where I insisted on references for anti-Islamic rhetoric? Don't assume that just because I'm a Christian that this is why I ask for references. Your sentence appears to imply that we are insisting on references because we do not like the views. For myself, I say that nothing could be further from the truth. It would also appear that Slrubenstein has not queried the passage because of his culture (I can't speak for Guy Montag as I don't know him very well). We want well referenced, solid material that is stated neutrally (read: does not state or imply that the position on an issue that is described is endorsed by Wikipedia). That is the sole reason for my questioning. You appear to have taken my questioning to be because of my world viewpoint. I got upset because that was not correct, and also got upset because you flung into me with all guns blazing. You may have believed that my initial comments were aggressive: maybe so, but, at the risk of stating a cliche, two wrongs do not make a right. I've now taken that article off my watchlist and won't be working on it: I just don't have enough time to work on an issue where I feel I'm getting attacked and I have many other articles I want to improve. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am in the process of adding paintings from the commons wherever they fit; alas, in many cases (as in this one) the photographs are pretty bad and don't do the original works justice. Well, I learned something new about this beautiful painting. Thank you so much for the explanation. Rl 21:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a bit of an eye-opener, I have to say: it had never occurred to me that some people might seriously classify "Semites" as non-white, let alone believe that all Afroasiatic languages were spoken by Semites! As you say, issues of confusing and contradictory terminology are a serious problem. In general I feel that these can best be avoided by simply not using ambiguous terms like "white" and "black", but in a discussion of Afrocentrism this option is clearly not available; many Afrocentrists are not satisfied with demonstrating that something was done by native African peoples (which the Egyptians certainly were and are) but feel that they have to show that it was done by "black" peoples (which the Egyptians were and are not.) The old term "Hamitic" will not help either; a Somali looks nothing like a Berber. - Mustafaa 18:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you and Yu-gi-od are keeping each other so occupied. Zosodada 15:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a pity you can't see a joke when it's staring you in the face. - Paul B 11:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey--

Thanks for the edit to Asante; as you can guess in my initial creation I had mostly pro-Asante sources to work from, and I want to put the anti- position in more as well. Glancing at your areas of interest, I suspect you know more about this than me. Can you elaborate on the criticism from around the world part, or point me to some sources I might be able to add it from? Merci beaucoup, Dvyost 04:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like your fixations...Two thumbs up!

Might I remind you, that socialism is leftist, national or not?

Just how many neo-Nazis today don't have some new age slant to their theories?

Libertarian_National_Socialist_Green_Party http://www.nazi.org/ http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us%7Dlnsg.html

Hitler Was a Sensitive Man

It's your problem in choice to hide from yourself the uncomfortable facets of life beyond your control, especially what would appear to be personally critical against your pride such as in the UK. I live every day of my life in cooling off my ego from a constant need for stimulation. You can't be serious with others, if you never let the cards of your hand show openly. This is factually why YOU messed with my edits, yet you'll never admit this like a man.

You are talking gibberish. I can't "admit" to something that is not even intelligable. I deleted your edits for the same reason the Mustafaa did - because they were incoherent, full of dogmatic assertions annd factual inaccuracies. Perhaps it's up to you to admit that "like a man". Paul B 09:38, 6 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You want to play stupid, as does the racist Mustafaa. That's your lot in life, not mine.

• It is generally accepted that the European peoples merely changed their language by economic interactions with exterior non-White civilisations such as the Indo-Aryan peoples of India and Iran, but changed genetically quite little.

[It is not generally accepted. See Paleolithic Continuity Theory. That's a minority position, but the more standard/traditional theory is explained on the Proto-Indo-European page. There you can see the familar claim that PIE originated in the Russian Steppe. Another widespread view, associated with Colin Renfrew is that it originated in Anatolia. I know of no creditable scholars who think that IE languages in Europe resulted from "economic interactions with exterior non-White civilisations". How on earth are Scandanavians and Irish supposed to have learned to speak IE in such away?]

Nazis were/are the most obsessed with linking the incursions of Mongols, Scythians, Huns, Gypsies, Alans, Magyars, Avars and other minorly related peoples with Lebensraum. Such people have been recorded and while a minority had remained in Europe, it is as if present-day immigrants somehow vastly altered the English language in the Nazi view. The truth is, English speakers have changed their language by choice of relation and not by invasion save for the Norman Conquest which had LASTED under direct control of the English people. Even Celtic tongues leave little trace and you want me to accept a widely masturbated Nazi ideology? It is obsolete as is your mental attachment with those so-called superior swastika people. Tell me how much the Hungarian people have altered the European languages by their overstay! Time period doesn't matter one Goddamned bit! All these people I speak of came from the Russian Steppes and were widely condemned by native Europeans. With the power of Attila and Khan, we'd think there were to be some significant traces, but this is out of scale to the facts. Europeans are Europeans and that is the simple truth of history. One or a few bad apples doesn't make the rest of them bad, nor do pretexts for militarist invasions of Poland escape propaganda. I have already explained that the Graeco-Roman Empires spread the Eastern cultures into Europe and by the passive-aggressive and invasive violence between frontier peoples from outside of the Mediterranean, people changed their ways of life. Think of Theodoric's changes to become Italian. People of small polity, are readily absorbed within the hive collective. None of this was possible before Alexander's legacy and his bastard copycats looking for glory! Empires alter the constitution of native societies, not tribal incursions! I agree that some European languages appear and sound Asiatic; these are Hungarian, Finnic and Bulgar peoples and their relatives in Russia/Caucasus. None of this is so prevalent in the rest of Europe. Besides, movements of Near Eastern desert peoples was limited to their environment. Stuff that went on in Homer's writings was not happening in Gaul(although Galatian peoples did in fact transmit their newfound culture back home in Gallia), nor does any of that early mythology matter to peoples far removed from the scene of action. Neighbourly disputes!

• For instance and in the same sense of the orange, cattle herding moved from Southwest Asia to Europe but that doesn't mean people migrated simultaneously in that same direction.

[no it doesn't, but people don't just change their language unless there is some migration.]

Of course there had been some mixture, but a minority is no priority. Whites in India? HMM?! Besides, don't you remember the Inquisition and Reconquista or even the Cathar expulsions? The Alan people were at the source of Catharism, as that region was where they settled prior to moving into Africa.

• Most proponents of a foreign source for the "Indo-European people" are associated with obselete racial supremacism; the desire to pretend that non-Whites never had any highly influential ancient history.

[this is untrue. It is still the standard view that IE languages originated outside India. This argument has nothing to do with racial supremacism. As for the notion that there is a distinct IE "people", few would argue today that that's the case, except perhaps in the sense that there was, at some point, an original population of PIE speakers]

Indo-European language is a conglomerate of all different peoples; imperial languages spread.

• These people overlook the bitter grudges and violent repulsions that erupted by the incursions of Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Gypsy, Jew, and Muslim peoples into Europe, but it is somehow propaganda in "benefit" to the Nazi party

[this has nothing whatever to do with the history of I-A speakers in India. In any case, it doesn't even follow from the previous sentence in any clear way. And the Nazi party no longer exists. Most neo-Nazis have no interest in the history of India.]

Who cares about India? I'm talking about Europe of Europeans. Using the term Caucasian is outdated, although it would work in the sense of the Caucasus being the furthest east that Whites lived in ancient times and as a border of the Asians who saw Whites as living Transmontaine through to the other side of the Caucasus. All neo-Nazis I have met are diehard Indo-Europeanists, frothing on that Swastika/Buddhist/Hindu nonsense. Your lies won't work.

• Like any non-powerful region of peoples such as Central Americans to North Americans, they will absorb the power of the core goings-on in the neighbouring world of hustle and bustle.

[Who is this referring to? It's far too oblique to be useful to the reader. I guess you are saying that the non-powerful people of ancient Europe "absorbed" the civilisation of ancient India. I know of no historical evidence for this at all]

India spread and blended with Iran. Iran spread and blended with Babylonia. Babylonia spread and blended with the Roman Republic. All of these places were under the domain of Alexander. It had to get to Greece before it could be mimicked by Rome, as with all things between them.

• Indo-Aryan people were never Whites

[that depends how you define the loose term "whites". Are Iranians whites or not?]

Iranians are a mixed blend of Australoid(from Indian Ocean), Mongoloid(from Himalayas) and Caucasoid(from Balkans).

• , but their civilisation directed the course of events in a domino effect for Europe even into modern times

[what evidence do you have for this? It is pure assertion, and does not represent mainstream views].

This is generally accepted knowledge, as also described by the Fifth Monarchy Men.

• This is one reason why some people are not supremacist, that they see things out of their control and far in the past

[this is not history, just vague psychological speculation]

This is a clear and casually easy thing to recognise and I have heard it personally so many times from the horse's mouth, I can't count. All the time I wondered if people carried grudges over lacking control of their present way of life, for the actions of others preceding them. They always told me what you seem to filibuster at this point. You can be a racist numbskull if you want.

• . Like Old European culture, everybody has ancient history, even without surviving written sources

[What are you trying to say here? It is not at all clear.].

So many years ago, the only accepted sources of civilisation were "ex luxor orientalis". Any native, Western and European heritage was condemned by elitist cosmopolite imperialists with their Churches' altar windows all facing Eastward. The Sun rises from that direction, so the Orientals were somehow the wisest men. This backwards people-worship still exists today, even after the archaeological digs that produced very refined artifacts. People have no care to connect themselves with their "barbaric pagan" past, with "fools" who never knew anything of the sophisticated East. You line your cerebral cavity pockets with the utmost prejudice and ignorance, as common. See Orientalism for a description of all this garbage.

• See Alexander the Great and Roman Republic, for information about how Indo-Aryan culture shifted westwards

[Alexander invaded part of India, and there was a Brahmin attached to his staff after this, but there is little evidence of sustained links between Greek and Indian culture, except in the cross-over points in Afghanistan and "Ghandara". Anyway, Greek culture was already highly developed at this point. Later Greek sources indicate a vague and confused conception of Indian culture. I don't know what the Roman Republic comment refers to. Again, it is too vague for readers]

The Roman Republic annexed Asiatic provinces from the ailing post-Alexandrians. Don't worry, I previously had no real knowledge on this matter as you. See these articles: Greco-Buddhism, Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, Indo-Greek Kingdom, Greco-Buddhist art, Buddhas of Bamiyan, Indo-Scythians, Indo-Parthian Kingdom, Kushan Empire, Seleucid Empire.

• See also British Empire and Emperor of India, for examination of where the racial supremacist ideas began to form and be widely accepted in the Victorian era after Charles Darwin's theories

[In fact racial suprematist ideas existed long before Darwin (e.g. polygenism), and were adapted to suit Darwinian theory. In any case this is marginal to the arguments regarding AIT. The relevance of Victorian racism needs to be seen in the context of specific arguments about invasions/migrations of I-A speakers into India].

Modern versions for people to use are handy for the reader to relate to. I find it ridiculuous that you find a prerogative in pretending reality doesn't exist, just so you can create your own worldview that advances your isolation from objectivity. Drop the arrogance.

You act just like Mexicans, pretend to not know English. All that is true of you, when you say my writings are undecipherable. I warned you about playing the stupid Nazi and here we are, with you feigning ignorance. Public education's tax dollars were wasted on you.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/11/10/ancient.europeans.ap/

OK...No big deal.

I'm sure that is impressive. TheUnforgiven 01:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The cleanup tag is necessary because the article is woefully underdeveloped and vague starting with the section on Said. It is those parts that I am referring to. I'm not an expert on the topic, otherwise I would have just made the corrections myself. But I _have_ read the book, and I find the current content unsatisfactory in its account of Said's work and its effects. Some portions seem to have been written by contributors who don't seem to have read the book at all, hence my comment to that effect when adding the cleanup tag. I think most everyone who has read the work would agree with this judgement. As you appear not to be one of these, I wonder how closely you read the text, or, more plausibly, whether you've read it at all. If you haven't, I think you should abstain from contributing. Of course I am referring specifically to parts of the article directly related to Said's work, but I think anyone asserting expertise on the indirect parts without having read Said is at best a questionable authority.

The tag may not be the best way to call attention to this; maybe there's a better tag. But until someone knowledgable gets around to doing the necessary work, there should be some measure of notice to the users of the article. Linkspro