Welcome!

Hello, LSLM, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Junes 08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Khoikhoi 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok chill out veritas. dont report me, its a waste of time over such a small matter. I suggest we talk about it here before we take it any further. I am watching your page you can answer me here directly.--Ismael76 18:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message in your page. Veritas et Severitas 18:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we can talk here from now on. Its ok if u cant cancel the reporting, the thing is I have been involved in reporting people in the past and its really a waste of time especially when involving reasonable people. By the way that final revert was just a joke. Im sure we can come to some consensus although we should better keep the discussions in our personal talk pages rather than making fools of ourselves in the article talk page. We should perhaps start off with a list of things on which we agree and then go on to things on which we dont so as to discuss them peacefully.--Ismael76 19:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are the one behind that final revert, you are going a bit too far. I am an adult, I do not know if you are a kid, I hope not, but your behaviour is very strange if you are familiar with the basic Wiki rules. I have always refrained from attacking you personallly in the article talk page, it is not my style, but your refusal to accept just a normal and verifiable contribution is quite strange. Let me ask you and do not be offended. I know that you are Spanish. If you want we can continue in Spanish. I think that you are from Ceuta or Melilla or from the extreme South of Spain, probably with some North African background. Tell me, Am I wrong? When you asked me about my origins I had no problems to answer it, though you have been trying to use it against me later, not very elegant, by the way. In any case I do not have to hide it. Veritas et Severitas 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is a good analysis of my user contributions. Perhaps you are right that we should put our personal issues in the open. I was born in Ceuta although I no longer live in Spain. I have "north african" background although my family is jewish not muslim. I originally started contributing to this article, having randomly come across it, because I was baffled by the ignorance of certain users who expressed racist views, making sweeping statements over who is and is not white and starting sections on "white history and civilisations". I started watching the article, privately believing the whole thing should be deleted as unencyclopedic. I admit I am suspicious of you since I also checked up your user contributions, much of which consist of defending the Europeanness of Spaniards and minimising any non-african or other influence, and I have noticed you have come into conflict with other users over this. I dont think that "White people" article is a suitable place for defending positions with such racialist connotations. Anyways, I am sure we can set aside our personal issues and find a consensus on this point in question.

--Ismael76 20:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ismael, If I am something is an Anti-Racist. I admit it, I do not have neutral feelings in this area. I hate racists, they are the worst plague in this planet, so do not get me wrong. I have been contributing also sometimes here. One of my lines has been to fight some clearly racist attitudes and comments. I have been defending and introducing for a long time that the term white is just a colloquial term for caucasian, that it does not equal European, and that North Africa and the Middle EAst is also a natural area of habitation for white people. All those comments have often been erased by simple people (and I think racist who think that they are not white for whatever reason, and so on). At the end I have been able that the reference to the Middle East and North Africa are in the World Distribution Section, not exactly how I made it, but at least recognized, and I will get back to it, because I think that it is still tendentious (the reference to the "broad US Census"). By the way it was me who erased the section on white nationalism, discussing it first, of course, and I have been insiting that to include white nationalist criteria here is absolutely inacceptable, etc.

Anyway, as you say, let us not concentrate on the messenger, and let us concentrate on the message.

Often I have come across references to Iberia and Spain that are simply wrong in my opinion and according to reputable and verifiable sources. If Lithuania has 1000 miles of roads and people insist that is has 2000 of 500, I will insist that it has 1000, it is just like that. Yet, I understand that other people may have other points of view, and as long as they support them with reputable proof, I am ready to respect that. That is how Wiki works. What I think you do not realize is that it is you who is trying to delete my contributions continuously, even though my contributions are all according to Wiki rules and standards. It is not me who is insisting on deleting yours. Mine and yours represent two perspectives, supported by documentation. It is as simple as that. Sorry, again, but I think that your behaviour is not being appropriate and I think that you can understand that. Veritas et Severitas 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the main point in question, what I meant is that the "White people" article should not become a battleground over how much north african admixture is to be found in Spaniards. Considering there must be dozens of genetic studies on this issue, many seemingly contradicting each other, it would make no sense to include all of them, or to argue cases. The article should barely mention iberia at all.

Anyways we may soon have to leave this discussion on hold for a couple of weeks. I am moving home soon and wont really have time to access the internet.

--Ismael76 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude really is disgusting and racist. I have read your comments to Gibnews.........you really are pathetic. Gibrlatar was not "stolen" by anyone.

Gibraltar is not, and NEVER will be a part of spain. Not even a little bit. Not now, not ever. So you and your racist, fascist comrades can dream on, but DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM will prevail. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.236.92 (talk • contribs)

You really need to calm down and stop insulting other editors. It is a policy on Wikipedia to assume good faith. I really don't understand why you cannot accept that your citations are not reliable sources. I have pointed you to the correct guideline (in science avoid citing the popular press. I urge you to find better sources for your edits. You should be using either the original book, which you do not appear to own or have read (so how do you know what it says?) or scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals. I have had many problems with newspaper articles in the past, they rarely accurately report science in my experience, and newspapers always report scientific theories as if they are fact, rather than evidence for a particular point of view. I would like report what Bryan Sykes has actually said himself, rather than what a journalist thinks he has said. I have ordered Sykes's book and will read it when it arrives, I can then cite it in the article, please do not include extremely unreliable newspaper reports. Here's an example of how poor the journalists are at reporting science. The original paper: Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration. What a journalist said about it :English and Welsh are races apart. So the journalist said almost the oposite of what the original paper said. Since removing very much mis-reporting of science by newspapers from wikipedia I have become extremely sceptical of the way newspapers deal with issues relating to science. In this case something very complex is being investigated by scientists, but journalists want a simple easy story. What I am saying is we should include Sykes research, and not what a journalist says about it. Alun 06:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do accept that Sykes is a reliable source, and also that he is undoubtedly a world leader in this field. When I get his book it will represent a reliable source from a wikipedia standpoint. In actual fact I have been following this for some time and the evidence for an Iberian origin for western Europeans is very strong, and getting stronger all the time. At the moment I feel a bit like I am battling on two fronts. I feel like Epf wants to dismiss the genetic work, because he doesn't like the way it is going (I think it largely goes against what he believes), but that you want to include all of the research as if it's concrete proof. This may be unfair to Epf and to you, but it's just how I feel at the moment. I've had a difficult day reverting Epf's edits to Welsh people and trying to convince him on his talk page that he has not understood a certain paper. Briefly the paper uses autosomal as well ans Y chromosome and mtDNA samples, but Epf keeps saying that only Y chromosome and mtDNA have been used. He is contradicting what is written in black and white in the paper. I cannot even revert his last edit because I have reached my three revert limit for that article for today. So I've had a bad wiki day and am feeling a bit under siege. So it was nice to get your message. Let's see what Sykes himself says and include it in the article when we have read his book. Sorry if I came accross as a bit aggressive. Alun 17:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology used by Wale et al. is totally obsolete. I really could gather little more than anything from it. Please contrast with this paper by Capelli et. al, specially with this graphic, that shows that English are intermediate between the native core (Basques, modern Celtic peoples) and the Denmark-Frisia area (but closer to the first ones on average).

Also, the gradation could be of "recent" origin (Anglo-Saxons, Vikings) or older (Maglemose culture, for instance). In any case only some coastal areas of the North Sea (York, Norwich) are neatly closer to Denmark-Saxony than to Wales-Ireland-Basque Country.

I made for my own use this clinal reconstruction of British of Nordic-Atlantic ancestry (based on the Capelli paper). I've uploaded it to ImageShack, so you can have a quick visual reference. Legend would be: Red is 100% Atlantic (Basque-Irish), Blue is over 50% Nordic (Danish-Saxon; Norwegian in the case of Orkney and not painted Shetland), cyan is 40-50% Nordic, and the rest goes on estimated 10 percentual points per color strip. Notice that this only talks of Y-chromosome (paternal) lineages. --Sugaar 09:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use newspaper sources for citing science. I have asked you not to do this before. I cannot understand why you have done it again. These are not reliable sources of information for science. You claim to have a copy of Sykes's book, in which case why don't you cite Blood of the Isles? I cannot accept these newspaper sorces as reliable, and indeed they do not constitute such according to wikipedia guidelines. I do not have a problem with inclusion of the work of Sykes's and of his conclusions, but please use a reliable source, for example the book itself rather than crap articles from crap newspapers, I mean come on, one of them is the Daily Mail, one of the worst newspapers ever published. I would also suggest that if you want to make reference to Iberian paleolithic people going to the British Isles by boat, you make it clear that this is a theory, do not say that they probably went by boat, say that they may have gone by boat. I also urge you to read the how to guideline on footnotes, this is the referencing system used in the English people article, and you should always follow the system an article already uses, your introduction of a different referencing system is confusing, and results in several different references having tha same numbers. All the best. Alun 05:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusatory statement against User:Dark Tichondrias on this edit in "His (Dark Tichondrias') continuous attempts to try and use this article to promote Neo-Nazi ideology...is disgusting...Neonazis come back " because it implies that the person you are directing your statement to is a "Neo-Nazi", making it against Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks.--Dark Tichondrias 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to White people, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You may delete uncited or incorrectly cited meterial. But deleting whole cited sections (population section) is considered vandalism. Thulean 13:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Almost exactly the same they placed in my talk. It's clear it's a concerted effort to take over the article.

• Veritas, you may want to comment in the RFI that that Thulean has opened against me. --Sugaar 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:White_people/Mediation#The_particular_dispute_discussed_here, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Thulean 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:White_people#Thulena_position, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Next time I'll be reporting you. Thulean 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report him, LSLM. He has already been warned for harassing me with his bogus threats. This harassment has to stop. --Sugaar 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your repeated personal attacks, you've been reported. [1]Thulean 21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes report me too, I hope people will finally uncover you. Veritas et Severitas 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thulean continues to attack White people pages he wont stop he needs to be taught vandalesson.--Euskata 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Thulean's report does carry some weight. It does not matter if you detest something another person believes in, it does not justify breaking Wikipedia's policies on no personal attacks and civility. I don't want to see anyone in this dispute get blocked over these concerns, so please work on the mediation and try to do so without having to refer to another editor or another editor's beliefs in a deragatory manner. Shell ^babelfish 17:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement on this edit where you said "I hope that some administrators can block this guy" is against Wikipedia's policy on civility which asks users to not call for blocking other users.--Dark Tichondrias 01:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to your friend Thulean who's been spamming all us with threats of block of his own creation. --Sugaar 12:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your message. I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 04:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:White_people#United_States_Census_Bureau_language, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Next time, I'll report you again. Thulean 23:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement on this edit which you took credit for on this edit with the statement "Is there a way here in Wiki in which finally people with such horrible agendas can be banned?" is against Wikipedia's policy on civility. This policy suggests users don't call for the blocking of other users.--Dark Tichondrias 02:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Due to your continued personal attacks, you've been reported: [2]

Thulean 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I know how heated of a dispute this is and I understand you feel frustrated with the process of reaching consensus, but labelling other editors and disregarding their input because of these labels isn't helping the situation at all. Shell ^babelfish 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shell: the claim is totally decontextualized. Have you read the section? LSLM doesn't talk about Thulean or DT's viewpoints but about an "alert" notice on stormfront.org calling to attack the article on grounds that it was being "vandalized". LSLM is saying how horrible would it be if Wikipedia was edited not from Wikipedia but from Stormfront (something that DT and Thulean don't seem to mind, anyhow). --Sugaar 16:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was specifically referring to "I openly accuse Thulean and Dark Tichondrias of Neo-Nazi propaganda" [3] and "Trying to be constructive about Thuleans attitude". Hope that helps clear things up. Shell ^babelfish 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that I have to give you the reason. But that wasn't what DT protested at. Anyhow... --Sugaar 21:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm currently reading ppenheimer's book. It's excellent, he has a comprehensive iblyography and notes, and uses previously published peer reviewed scientific papers. It has a very comprehensive feel to it. I haven't read Sykes book yet, but looking at the appendices and index it doesn't have the sort of comprehensive or academic feel of Oppenheimer's work. Still we can cite both and I suspect there will be many areas of agreement. All the best. Oppenheimer certainly argues strongly for the Iberian origin of most people from the British Isles, though he mentions a paleolithic contribution from the Balkan refuge to England. Alun 07:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to join in the mediation at Talk:White people/Mediation? I think you may be able to make a useful contribution. Alun 14:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The infamous block

Veritas: do not get paranoid yet. The policy is on my side: it was a totally unjust block and I am appealing. I still trust Wikipedia. I don't trust so much certain wikipedians and administrators but I have faith that in the end truth, justice and NPOV shall prevail. If not in the ANI, where admins seem to behave like a wolfpack, at least in first instance, in ArbCom. Policy is very clear and Shell Kinney simply broke all rules.

In my appeal I also ask for Shell to be recused from further cases against me or related to the controversial article due to bias and misuse of admin privileges.

I won't go back to that article at least in a looooong while. I've reached my personal limit with it and after all non-existent races are not my primary interest. I believe though that all this conflict will help to raise awareness about what is going on in that battlefield... (oops! article) and specially about Thulean's wikilawyerist attitude. Besides it may also raise awareness about misuse of policy by certain admins that never admit any error nor fulfill their duties.

Ironically Shell Kinney is running for ArbCom herself. Guess that her campaign is something like "Wikipedia needs an iron man and that's me" of Thatcher. I don't know. I'm voting a more promising candidate.

Enjoy, --Sugaar 07:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Veritas,

I would really appreciate your vote in this request for undeletion. I felt that an article related to "Spanish Gibraltarians", which you can find on my talk page, was unfairly undeleted. The link to the discussion on undeletion is here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_16#Spanish_Gibraltarians

--Burgas00 17:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Kinney has opened an RfC on my behaviour. You can endorse either view or comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sugaar. --Sugaar 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to me that the black people article and the white people article are both suffering from somewhat similar problems; control by extremists who want to push certain agendas.--Filll 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain this [4] edit summary. I am German and sincerely hope those remarks weren't directed at me. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mein lieber Brendel, Ich bin auch deutscher Herkunft. Mein Vater ist Deutsch, meine Mutter aus Spanien. Ich meine die Nazi-Germanisten, nicht die Deutschen. Veritas et Severitas 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, dann ist ja alles Gut. Danke für deine schnelle Antwort. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you emphasize that Basques are genetically close to Spaniards specifically when we are actually closer to Gascons and, in some aspects at least, closer to Atlantic Celtic peoples? The issue is complex enough and you are emphasizing a very questionable aspect that can only have a (Spanish nationalist) political reading.

Besides, Spaniards themselves are rather variegated: while some northern peoples can be pretty close to Basques, despite more Mediterranean or Indo-European admixture, others are not so close.

Oops, my bad. It wasn't you. Sorry. --Sugaar 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aditionally you changed the percentage of R1b from 95% to 90%. I don't think you have added any source that documents that and it's probably due to diferent visual readings of the same "cake". Possibly the truth is somewhere in between, so I'll correct to 90-95%. Ok? --Sugaar 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About your comments.

1. Basques and Spaniards are as related as you can see in the sources that I have provided. Neither less, nor more. The majority of Basques and Spaniards belong to the same population group. About 90% of Basques and about 70% of Spaniards, one up one down. By the way, taking into account that there are about 40 million Non-Basque Spaniards, about 28 million belong to that population group (the Rb1, or Atlantic one). Taking into account that there are about 3 million Basques, and that including the Navarrese, there are about 2 million Basques that belong to that population group, a ten per cent of the Non-Basque Spaniards. In other words, for every Basque that belongs to that population group, thre are 9 non-Basque Spaniards.

2. The 95% I have never seen. I have rather seen close to 90%. Anyway I do not think it is important to argue about that difference.

3. I loathe all types of extreme nationalists, be them Spanish, Basques or German nationalists: They all have the same kind of terrible and horrible leanings and a high propensity to lie and manipulate information to suit their agendas.

4. I am myself Basque on my mother's side and German on my fathers. I consider myself a Basque, a Spaniard and a German. And a lot of Basques like me consider themselves Spaniards, in spite of the fact that we have to live with the harrassment of one of the most violent minorities in Europe, the extreme Basque nationalists. Veritas et Severitas 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've already replied to this elsewhere. But just in case that 70% ficure is equally applicable to English, Portuguese, Occitans, Northern Italians (and possibly other groups). There's nothing so special in the genetic relation between Basques and Spaniards or French, both are partly "Basque" indeed, just like other Western Euros in ranges from c.50% (Germans, Italians, French, Danes) to c.100% (Irish, Welsh and Basque ourselves). Regards, --Sugaar 12:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an "official" RfC, as it's obvious that we two alone won't reach to any agreement.

Would you mind exposing (briefly, sythetically) your position in (hopefully) a better way than I did. Regards, --Sugaar 15:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reaction. My reply

This is what I was going to reply to your rather off-limits "protest" in the Basque people talk page but A.R. timely suggested better not (edit conflict), to what I had to agree:

Well, Chávez is also a Basque surname... you know, probably an evolution of Etxabe. Everything is related. Castile/Spain too but not more, not less.

And please stop crying wolf. With such an abuse of the term "fascist" we will end not knowing which are the real ones.

The Basque Country is possibly one of the most welcoming places on Earth, for those who respect it. Ask A.R., he's from Canada, I believe, but I've seen people from Mali saying the same. There may still be some racist people but you are talking to none of them. We just happen to like being ourselves and not just like you. It's not better nor worse, it's not even a matter of blood, it's a matter of identity, of culture, of traditions, of language... of the little magic that still permeates the mountains.

What we don't welcome is precisely fascists and their likes. You can read that painted in the walls: "Ni nazis, ni amigos de los nazis. Se acabó la tontería", reads just a few blocks down my house, emphasized by the drawing of a boot smashing a svastika. And it's not just words, as you can imagine.

And, finally. This [the article's discussion page] is not a forum. If you have something generalistic to discuss with me, you are welcome to my talk page or you can even email me.

... but please meditate a little what you're saying. I know that things are often seen differently from Madrid... but Madrid is not in the Basque Country, whatever you may think. Here we just have a different society and a different communitary POV, less affected by the unilateralism of the Spanish nationalist monolithic discourse. --Sugaar 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are bloody insane, some Basque towns (for example Getxo) have a distinct Irish Republican air about them. And the University of the Basque Country is both a den of kale barokas and often times witness and victim to their vandalisms or worse.--SanIsidro 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll ignore this guy and his PA). This reply is adressed to LSLM (re. what he wrote in the Basque People article talk, a bad place to discuss these things, I believe).

I thought you were from Madrid, but I'm maybe confusing you with some other user, also interested in the Basque theme. Maybe you just said you were "from Spain" and that's what I got things mixed up. Anyhow I know many "españolistas", including in my own family and really they never had any trouble other than maybe heated discussions and, in a few cases, self-induced paranoia.

My own grandfather came here as fascist volunteer from Italy. He lived all his life peacefully. His wife, my grandma, a local fascist (falangista) and a personal friend of arch-traitor Goicoechea was indeed once in danger of getting killed during the war but not in the rest of her life. My grandfather was a physician and died of natural causes at advanced age, never ever suffering even a threat, his neighbour Santiago Brouard was also a physician but was killed by the Spanish gunmen in his home.

You are accusing some of xenophobia, yet you are telling an euskaldun of English roots to go home. Doesn't it sound very contradictory. As I said before, in general the Basque people is quite welcoming with those that respect us, specially those that learn the language, what is kind of the definitive proof of Basquehood (per nom: euskaldun=Basque-speaker).

Think about all that. And please reply in my talk page or here not in the article's talk page. You're making a soapbox of this and not adressing the issue but diverting it to politics. Much of what you say is borderline PA (no, I won't warn/report you. Unlike others I think you can make useful apportations as long as you can manage to respect others' positions and try to see things objectively and not just passionately from your nationalist ideology). Regards, --Sugaar 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are one of the roughly 10 people who has had trouble with this user Lukas19 in about a one month period. I have noticed a disturbing pattern. Take a look at his talk page for more details.--Filll 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Coredesat 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]