176:. Your citations are either from unreliable sources, or mistaken citations (citing a quote from one person to a different author, for example). Your additions are not adding balance, they are expanding the scope of the article beyond the book, and onto the person. Other editors will come and weigh in, I'm sure, and if you want to add balance, I think you'll end up needing to abide by some basic rules. My apologies again for being unable to communicate to you effectively, as I said, I'll wait an obligatory 24 hours before reverting your inappropriate changes, and hopefully we can draw in other editors to help mediate our dispute. --
360:) 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Also, you have nothing reliable to suggest that Esters lied because Oprah refused to promote her book and you may not say that Oprah's parents were teenagers at the time of her birth when other content on the page shows that her father was born in 1933 and that Oprah was born in 1954 or biased statements like that Esters is a not a reliable resource because of where she lived at the time Oprah claimed she was molested. Where you also not aware that Esters could have made this claim to shows ET or The Insider as well; Kitty Kelley wasn't the only person she could've gone to. Read the
415:
129:, and we'll both be blocked from editing, allowing other editors a chance to be more constructive regarding the article. I'm not trying to blame you at all, but apparently I'm not communicating well with you. My apologies, and I hope that after the block period, you're willing to come back to edit in good faith on the article. --
282:
I don't mean to lecture you. As important as it is for me to remember this rule, it is important for you to learn this rule. At this point, I understand what I did wrong, have apologized, and self-reverted back to right before my fourth revert to beg forgiveness. I'm hoping that a third party will
261:
is to avoiding edit wars, and I don't think that anything I say will convince you of that. I hope that an administrator will be able to communicate more effectively with you, and if that just means a single warning that causes you to behave differently, great. Hopefully, as a new user, you'll learn
165:
The details I added are all cited. I don't know why you panic every time something other than
Rushton-bashing is added to the article. Just take a deep breath and realize that the additions I made to the article are simply to add balance, and had you not reverted them so aggressively, I would have
240:
Also, unless you can find a citation for what you believe are the "two important predictions" (that is, someone prominent published saying "these are the two important predictions from
Rushton's paper"), it's simply your opinion. Further, the article is not on his 1998 paper, it is on his book.
352:) 20:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC) So help me, I will report you if you continue to be biased and violate the NPOV policy. You can be an Oprah fan, but you cannot use Knowledge as a fanpage. The Daily Beast is also quite a reliable news source and doesn't violate the BLP verifiable source policy.
98:, and if we don't come to some sort of consensus, together, we're both going to be blocked. Please, I'm trying to help address your concerns, but I can't do that if you won't discuss the issue before proceeding. --
225:, and place numerous studies, unspecific to Rushton, vacating the biological concept of race in the article as well. This wouldn't help us build a better article, but only turn it into a long, drawn-out POV war.
93:
Please, take a breath, let's spend at least an hour to discuss the issue before blanket reverting and adding your positive personal reviews of
Rushton. This edit war is not worth it. We're both treading on
262:
this lesson quickly, and won't be inspired to engage in edit wars in the future. Teaching you constructive ways of contributing to
Knowledge isn't a waste of administrator time, as I hope you'll agree. --
156:, and I've reported myself as well. I've suggested that you only receive a warning for your violation, since you're relatively new here. Hopefully tomorrow we can be more constructive with each other. --
230:
We need to keep the article to a brief overview of
Rushton's book. It is not a place to argue over the details of his theories, or to engage in a debate on the topic he covers. --
283:
be able to help you understand what you did wrong. I don't expect you to listen to me, but hopefully someone else will be able to communicate more effectively with you. --
329:
Carson, 1959 (Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 24:1959 87-105) predates it by a considerable amount, and is cited by Robert K. Selander
Systematic Zoology : -->
61:, and let's see if we can discuss your concerns with the current article, and come to some compromise, before engaging in an unproductive edit-war. Thanks! --
78:
and come to a consensus before making controversial edits. Please help me work with you, before adding disputed text to the article again. Thanks! --
365:
353:
345:
173:
75:
58:
107:
It takes two to have a revert war. Why are you trying to blame me. I'm talking just as much on the talk page as you are.
301:
392:
446:
388:
369:
357:
349:
442:
25:
Asserting what are the two important predictions of
Rushton's first paper seem like unnecessary detail.
423:
384:
437:
Please do not vandalize this article with completely nonsensical unreferenced content as you did
361:
273:
167:
108:
221:
in this case, as a way of supporting
Rushton's theories. I may just as well desire to violate
431:
331:
321:
284:
263:
242:
231:
208:
177:
157:
130:
99:
79:
62:
48:
305:
125:
I'm sorry, it seems this isn't working out. I'll have to report both of us for violating
427:
258:
251:
222:
218:
204:
197:
153:
126:
95:
31:
401:
320:
Kozlowski & Wiegert, 1986, I believe predate
Rushton's use of the term. --
203:
Pro-actively citing research which may support
Rushton's claims is engaging in
419:
30:
Asserting that genetic cluster analysis supports Rushton's tri-level violates
450:
418:
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge, as you did at
396:
373:
334:
324:
310:
287:
266:
245:
234:
211:
180:
160:
133:
102:
82:
65:
51:
74:
This whole effort will be much more productive if you participate on the
344:
Knowledge is not a fanpage. You need to keep your opinions to yourself.
172:
The details you added are improperly cited, please see the specifics on
205:
WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position
43:
Favorable citations should be about the book, not about the author.
38:
The assertion regarding native americans needs to be referenced.
272:
Why are you lecturing about violating rule you also violated?
430:
or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
441:. Do so again, and I will have to report you to an admin
438:
21:Thanks for the note. Here are my specific issues:
379:Asian American article Undue template discussion
8:
330:Vol. 16, No. 3 (Sep., 1967), pp. 286-287. --
340:You Need To Quit Vandalizing The Oprah Page
383:You are invited to join the discussion at
257:I don't think you realize how important
7:
217:I understand your desire to violate
300:For violating the 3 revert rule on
166:moved on to other articles by now.
152:You've been reported for violating
422:. Your edits appear to constitute
296:You have been blocked for 24 hours
14:
174:Talk:Race,_Evolution_and_Behavior
76:Talk:Race,_Evolution_and_Behavior
59:Talk:Race,_Evolution_and_Behavior
47:Hope this explains my revert. --
413:
1:
385:Talk:Asian American#Undue tag
335:07:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
325:07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
311:08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
302:Race, Evolution and Behavior
288:01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
267:01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
246:06:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
235:07:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
212:06:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
181:01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
161:00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
134:00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
103:00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
83:23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
66:17:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
52:06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
466:
451:21:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
397:23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
374:22:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
17:Race, Evolution, Behavior
316:Life history theory
405:
389:RightCowLeftCoast
457:
417:
416:
399:
465:
464:
460:
459:
458:
456:
455:
454:
414:
411:
381:
342:
318:
298:
255:
201:
19:
12:
11:
5:
463:
461:
443:Thegreyanomaly
426:and have been
410:
407:
380:
377:
341:
338:
317:
314:
297:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
277:
276:
254:
249:
238:
237:
227:
226:
200:
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
183:
143:
142:
141:
140:
139:
138:
137:
136:
116:
115:
114:
113:
112:
111:
88:
87:
86:
85:
69:
68:
45:
44:
40:
39:
35:
34:
27:
26:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
462:
453:
452:
448:
444:
440:
435:
434:. Thank you.
433:
429:
425:
421:
408:
406:
403:
398:
394:
390:
386:
378:
376:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
339:
337:
336:
333:
327:
326:
323:
315:
313:
312:
309:
308:
303:
295:
289:
286:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
274:Saturdayseven
271:
270:
269:
268:
265:
260:
253:
250:
248:
247:
244:
236:
233:
229:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
210:
206:
199:
196:
182:
179:
175:
171:
170:
169:
168:Saturdayseven
164:
163:
162:
159:
155:
151:
150:
149:
148:
147:
146:
145:
144:
135:
132:
128:
124:
123:
122:
121:
120:
119:
118:
117:
110:
109:Saturdayseven
106:
105:
104:
101:
97:
92:
91:
90:
89:
84:
81:
77:
73:
72:
71:
70:
67:
64:
60:
56:
55:
54:
53:
50:
42:
41:
37:
36:
33:
29:
28:
24:
23:
22:
16:
436:
412:
382:
366:75.72.35.253
354:75.72.35.253
346:75.72.35.253
343:
332:JereKrischel
328:
322:JereKrischel
319:
306:
299:
285:JereKrischel
264:JereKrischel
256:
243:JereKrischel
239:
232:JereKrischel
209:JereKrischel
202:
178:JereKrischel
158:JereKrischel
131:JereKrischel
100:JereKrischel
80:JereKrischel
63:JereKrischel
49:JereKrischel
46:
20:
364:policy too.
307:Woohookitty
57:Please see
420:South Asia
409:South Asia
424:vandalism
400:(Using {{
428:reverted
362:Fancraft
432:sandbox
259:WP:3RR
252:WP:3RR
223:WP:NOR
219:WP:NOR
198:WP:NOR
154:WP:3RR
127:WP:3RR
96:WP:3RR
32:WP:NOR
207:. --
447:talk
439:here
393:talk
370:talk
358:talk
350:talk
304:. --
404:}})
402:pls
387:.
449:)
395:)
372:)
241:--
445:(
391:(
368:(
356:(
348:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.