User talk:Dark Tichondrias

Welcome!

Hello, Dark Tichondrias, 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
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Seek Consensus on Changes to Asian Pages

You should discuss making such drastic changes on the topic's discussion board. It's obvious some people don't approve of your changes and will revert it. Plus, it looks as if you are vandalizing the articles. --Dangerous-Boy

Welcome to Wikipedia. I posted some info above on how the site works. I noticed that you believe passionately in some of the Census racial naming policies. However, before you unilaterily make such a large change, there needs to be consensus on the issue (see Wikipedia:Consensus). To get consensus, raise the issue of racial and ethnic names on an article's talk page. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Please do not put your personal opinion into articles. As strange as it may sound to you Wikipedia tries to be unbiased and factual source of information, not soapbox arena. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Your race-related edits

Please see Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Basically, try to keep your edits neutral and cite sources for them. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! ~~ N (t/c) 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

By "soapbox" I mean a place to air your personal beliefs. If you haven't already, refer to the above pages and Wikipedia:No original research. ~~ N (t/c) 23:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. You hover over virtually all race related pages and constantly reshape them to suit your point of view. Sorrowek 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important to be neutral when editing and make Wikipedia represent the research of the most knowledgeable authorities in respective subjects.---Dark Tichondrias 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Since User:Sorrowek did not cite any examples of me making race-related pages fit my views, I assume she is referring to the Mongoloid article she reverted. I added the Mongoloid article citation from the Greek Wikipedia, not knowing citations from other Wikipedias are not allowed. This edit does not represent my point of view like User:Sorrowek claimed, but the view I assume the majority of Greek Wikipedians share.---Dark Tichondrias 19:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion location

Hi Dark Tichondrias, Thanks for contributing to the discussion about the pictures on Asian American, but could you keep your comments on that article's talk page instead of posting them to my personal talk page? I feel the discussion should all be over there so everyone can participate. Thanks! --Lukobe 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

census map

ok I took out Australia and added Hawaii. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

ok I put indonesia in the asian group -- Astrokey44|talk 01:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of Template:2000USCensus

Hi. I see you've almost managed a revert war with yourself over whether Template:2000USCensus should be on Pacific Islander. It seems the choices for that template are all somewhat arbitrary. As it is a USA Census template, it should only be on USA-specific articles. For example remove it from Black (race) and put it on African American instead. Please consider removing it (again) from Pacific Islander and finding an NHOPI or Pacific American or similar article to put it on that relates specifically to people in the USA and its territories. Part of my concern for putting this template on these general articles is the mess we'd be in of every nation with a race question in their census tried to put a template that size on every article mentioned. Worse this particular template is for the 2000 census, suggesting there could be another one for the previous and next censuses. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to get rid of "mongoloid"

Thanks for getting rid of "mongoloid"--I agree that the term is outdated. But in some cases, your replacements don't make sense. An example, in Korean people:

The "mongoloid" peoples of North Asia and Central Asia have relatively tall statures... ---> The Northern East Asian peoples of North Asia and Central Asia have relatively tall statures...

"Northern East Asian peoples of North Asia and Central Asia," as you can see, doesn't make any sense.

Can you fix the cases in which your edits make the sentences confusing?

--Lukobe 21:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad too, but like I said, your edits make the sentences confusing sometimes...could you address? --Lukobe 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Another example: in Sharchop, you changed Indo-Mongoloid to Indo-East Asian-looking. It's fine to eliminate "mongoloid" where appropriate, but you have to replace it with something that makes sense and is grammatical. --Lukobe 00:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of your other edits are problematical, too. As you've changed it, Northern Mongoloid's introduction violates Wikipedia style and is ungrammatical as well.

Carleton S. Coon defined the Mongoloid race, so the Northern Mongoloid is based off of his racial defintions...'

I'm reverting these kinds of changes where I see them. Happy to work with you on how your edits can be made without introducing these kinds of problems. --Lukobe 06:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

About "the racially insulting term"

Hi,

I have objected to your claim that "the racially insulting term" is "offensive" for the following reasons. Firstly it seems to be based on the fact that Down's syndrome was once called ""the racially insulting term"". For a start there are many similar terms that refer to nations and peoples negatively. Bugger derives from "Bulgar" because it was once believed to be a habit of Bulgarians. Syphilis was labelled "The French Disease" by the English and "the English disease" by the French. There is German Measles and Dutch Elm Disease. There is derogatory use of "Jewish" to mean miserly etc etc. Numerous other instance can be cited. In no case do we say that the original national/religious or whatever meaning has become "insulting" because it is used with a negative meaning in another context. The same applies to "Mongol". Mongolia is not changing its name is it? The Mongolians are no less proud to be called "Mongolian". Your whole argument is topsy-turvy. The term "Mongol" is no longer used for Down's syndrome because it is offensive to Mongolians. To assert that Mongol, Mongolian and "the racially insulting term" therefore become offensive terms is as illogical as saying that Jews should no longer be called "Jewish" because in some contexts the term is used offensively. And anyway, why single out ""the racially insulting term"" and ignore Mongol and Mongolian? People with DS, were actually usually called "mongols", not ""the racially insulting term"", so it's not even consistent. "the racially insulting term" is a term for a racial category defined by phenotype. Whether you think the name is appropriate or not is beside the point. That's what it's called. "Caucasian" is a pretty daft name too, but that's the one we have for that category. Whether or not you think the category is scientifially valid or not is also not relevant in this instance, since we are discussing a phenotype.

The problem with them like "South Asia" is that they are highly misleading. Yes, they can be used with a precisely delimited meaning, but the phrase itself just means "the southern part of Asia" - which might mean Korea, Japan or parts of China to most readers. India is far more useful, and historically has referred to the subcontinent as a whole, not just to the modern nation state. Objection to its use arise from political and ethnic struggles over labels, which result in the end with unhelpful and confusing terms like "South Asia", and barely intelligable sentences in which "South" "East" and "Southeast" Asia are throw together in a way that generates obscurity rather than clarity. Paul B 17:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's always tiresome when people start quoting general logical falacies, as though they apply to specific arguments which do not use the these fallacies. Perhaps I shall call it the fallacy of evading actual arguments by attaching labels of logical fallacies. Firstly the first point was clearly not a "slippery slope" argument. It was designed to emphasise that you are inverting logic by stating that an established meaning of a term in its established sense becomes derogatory because it is used in another context in a derogatory way. All these terms are equal in this respect. There is no "slope". The argument applies to all of them. There is no reason to stop calling Genghis Khan a Mongol on the grounds that it implies he is retarded. To do so would actually be an unsult to Mongolians and to the ethnic term that had been used for centuries. That's the central point you seem unable to recognise. The same argument applies to "the racially insulting term". No slope. This is the term for the racial category. "East Asian" is not established in this sense. It refers to geography. Many people placed in this phenotypical category do not live there.

As for the second argument, it was again about established usage. It is only an "argument from antiquity" in this sense, not in the sense you mean. That is, it says that this usage exists and is established. This is about language and about clarity. In the relevant page under discussion, the term is used for clarity and is specifically not exclusive, since the phrase "other peoples" is clearly added, indicating that the two terms used are given as the most important examples. Paul B 18:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you are shifting your ground. As I have already stated, it is a phenotypical category and it is still used in anthropology and taught in anthropology courses. It is not obsolete, though there is legitimate debate about its usefulness, and genetic arguments have been used to criticise the argument that anthropometrics can be used to accurately identify relatedness of populations. There is a legitimate debate here, but there is no clear consensus. Your evangelism on this topic is indicated by your unappropriate rewriting of my earlier comments to remove "Mongol" as a description of Gengis Khan and elsewhere on the page, despite the fact that this is a usage that is universally accepted. Paul B 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is most inappropriate to rewrite other people's comments, it gives a false impression to other about what they have said. And no, it is not taught as an obsolete category, though the problems with all models of racial classification are certainly discussed in any course. In fact the image on the "the racially insulting term" page comes from a current anthropology course. Paul B 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Dark Tichondrias, please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable_on_Wikipedia: "Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing or deleting your own words is up to you. Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context." --Lukobe 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

About "Asia"

I think we need to go one step further. The word "Asia", applied to a disparate array of civilisations often with little in common culturally, politically, or ethnically, is a completely Eurocentric construct. We need to banish this conception from the English language as it is behind much of the kind of thinking found in the US and Western countries in general that belittles Asian contributions to world civilisation and gives an exaggerated position to Europe. Might I suggest that "Europe" should be renamed "Western Eurasia", the so-called "Far East" "Eastern Eurasia", and "Southeast Asia" "Southeastern Eurasia". We also need to come up with a new unambiguous term for the Middle East (sometimes called "Southwestern Asia"). The "Indian subcontinent" is also a problem as it includes the nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are often hostile to India and do not necessarily want to be thrown in with it. How about "South Eurasian subcontintent"?

As for racial categories, perhaps "Mongoloid" could be replaced with "East Eurasian" (Southeast Eurasia can also be considered "eastern" and the peoples of Northeast Eurasia -- Siberia etc. -- are also considered to belong to the "Mongoloid" peoples.)

Bathrobe 00:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer to your comment on my user page: "I don't think the change will happen in Eurasia and I hope you don't change wiki around to confuse users to make it fit the Eurasia concept."

I was under the impression that you supported attempts to rectify such undesirable usages in Wikipedia. I guess I will have to seek support for my campaign elsewhere.

Bathrobe 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:RaceHist2000USCensus

I suggest you remove the US-centric column from this template, unless you restrict its placement to US-only articles, which you aren't doing... --Lukobe 18:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man! --Lukobe 19:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

AsianWhite.org

The page's Alexa ranking is in the 800,000s. We generally don't keep webpages that are above about 10,000 unless the webpage is demonstrated to have some other notability (major news coverage, being the leading source of info for a notable community, etc.) Nothing against the webpage, we just don't want to set a precedent for every webpage to try and have an article on Wikipedia. If you can dig up some verifiable sources of notability like what I mentioned above, bring them to the table in its deletion discussion.

Yellowworld.org Alexa rating

I thought Alexa ratings under 80,000 were acceptable for Wiki. What is the actual acceptable number? #--Dark Tichondrias 20:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is really no set barrier. Some people say that anything that is below 100,000 is OK, while others, like User:Grandmasterka above, think that only websites with rankings below 10,000 should generally be included. I tend to lean toward the latter view, but I don't have any exact cutoff. Because you seem to have object to the {{prod}}, though, I'll start an AFD. NatusRoma | Talk 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

MM

I have been meaning to write the article for a while. It's a start...--Rockero 21:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been merciless. Please check out the new version. Thx--Rockero 02:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I was a little hasty.--Rockero 01:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

SOS

Regarding your edits to Save Our State: You have changed one section heading from "Alleged ties to extremist groups" to "Extremist Groups tag-along with SOS Activities" with the edit summary "changed title so it doesn't imply connections which are unfounded from evidence". In case you couldn't tell, this article was controversial at first, but after input from the various factions, we have been able to come up with a stable version. That is, everything in there is in there for a reason, and it's all worded in a certain way for a reason. I think the section title "Alleged ties to extremist groups" is adequate because while much has been made about connections, nothing has been proven definitively other than that there have been ties. While your phrasing may adequately reflect what SOS members say about their group, it is not "NPOV". It also minimizes the connections, which according to some sources, are substantial. I'm changing it back for now, and I invite you to make an argument on the talkpage in favor of your phrasing if you are inclined to do so, and then let the community decide. Thanks for your contributions,--Rockero 06:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

image permission

actually now Im not sure about that map since it is controversial. -- Astrokey44|talk 15:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Blumenbach's race is not the same as a Mongolian

Blah, sorry, Guess I should call it a night. I missed this part "It differs because it does not include Southeast Asians..." Carry on. :) Forgive my boneheadedness. Wirewad 10:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition of new race articles

Hi, I noticed that you have added a number of new race articles, such as Medish race, Xanthochroi race and Sudish race. Your source for this appears to be the website March of the Giants. This site does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards as regards reliable sources. Are you able to claim otherwise? --BillC 22:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If the subjects you named are only referenced in March of the Giants and comparable sources, then articles on those subjects do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Do you agree? --BillC 22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:RS, partisan websites should never be used as primary sources of information. In fact, the Stormfront Website is specifically mentioned as a website that should not be relied upon as a prmimary source. March of Giants appears to be a personal website, which is also forbidden per WP:RS. --BillC 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your civility. However, I must insist that you read through WP:RS, particularly with regard to web-based sources. I draw your attention to WP:RS#Bulletin_boards_and_posts_to_Usenet, in which "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." The sources you have mentioned to me are exactly this: posts on bulletin boards. Wikipedia has no way of assessing the credibility of the information written there. --BillC 22:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your civility. Articles can only be deleted by an administrator. I can place AfD or PROD notices against those articles, but the process would be considerable speeded up if you yourself were to place {{db-author}} templates at their start. If you don't want to do that, I can understand and will place the PROD notices myself. Thank you. --BillC 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You may have noticed that an administrator (I don't known whom) has already removed the two articles. I am calling it a night now, but I would welcome a discussion on Insensible race, Wood Eater race and the others in the morning. Regards, --BillC 23:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Historical definitions of race

Can you alphabetize this template? --Lukobe 05:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to alphabetize the template, but it is hard. Alphabetizing is not easy. If another race is added to the template, the whole thing has to be revised. All the races would have to be pushed down one if the new race started with an A. This is too much work for each new race. I plan on adding more historical definitions of race, so this would be too much work for each race. When the table is more complete, it would be beneficial for it to be alphabetized. -- Dark Tichondrias 09:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How many more historical definitions of race do you plan to add? Do you think you should rethink that in light of the calls for deletion a number of your articles have garnered? --Lukobe 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think you may want to rethink this... --Lukobe 06:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I count over 50 articles in your template right now. I am sure there are going to be calls for, at the least, some of them to be merged... --Lukobe 17:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Climatic Zone race copyedit tags

Yes, he actually considered them races. I rented a book from the library about the history of the idea of races. Other race scientists at the time commented on his racial system. One said his defintions were foolish. You can remove the copyedit template if this is why you added it. -- Dark Tichondrias 06:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't why I added {{copyedit}} -- I did so because those articles need copyediting to conform to encyclopedic style... --Lukobe 19:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongoloid page map

Hey, cool map on human demographic races. But shouldn't the "east African mixed" part also include the Sudan? And also, I would've thought that the "threshold" between the Caucasian and Asian populations be more to the west, including all of Central Asia excluding Tajikistan, up to the Urals? Did Carleton Coon come up with your exact map?Le Anh-Huy 05:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bernier

Could you please elaborate on the historical context of François Berniers racial map ? For the sake of the article ? (84.193.163.31 10:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

Removal of Template

Another user told me the template was wrong again, but he was not specific enough. He said the Mongoloid went as far as the Ural mountain range. I thought I made them go that far on the map. What is still wrong? -- Dark Tichondrias 08:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That part is fine, it's just that the Horn of Africa (a very controversial area wrt its classification) is "Caucasoid" according to Coon's map, whereas your map has it "Negroid." Since it says it is based on Coon, it should reflect that. Yom 09:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ancestor worship

There is ancestor worship in the The Indian Subcontinent. --Dangerous-Boy 08:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Asian Race

Hi, I saw your site and noticed that you say Taoism is an offshoot of Confucianism, which is wrong. It is more likely to be the other way. See the Wikipedian articles for proof. Thanks Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Template_talk:Historical_definitions_of_race

Dark Tichondrias, would you care to comment at Template_talk:Historical_definitions_of_race on the proposed conversion of your template to a category? --Lukobe 17:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Race (historical definitions)

Hello again. I said I would get back to you on your race definition articles. There are a number of issues here, but one of the most important ones is that most of the articles give no context to assert the notability of their subjects. For example, Wood Eater race says in its entirety "Anthropologist James Burnett also known as Lord Monboddo in his book Of the Origin and Progress of Language (1773) defined the semi-human Wood Eaters." We are not told: How did he define them? What differentiated them from other races? Is this race definition still considered valid by anthropologists? If not, when did it fall into disfavour? Who else has commented on this race definition? Did Burnett actually consider that they ate wood? Where were the wood-eaters based? What language did he suppose them to speak? On what evidence did he base his conclusions? And, most important of all: how historically important is this race definition?

You see, without any of this information, all we have is a single sentence that says 'someone in the eighteenth century defined a race'. To be blunt, I have the feeling that quite a few of these many historical race definitions would not survive AfD discussions. What should we do? --BillC 00:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think most of these newly created race articles need to be folded into the main articles for the people who defined those races. --Lukobe 23:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Australoid, Capoid, and Negroid have their own page even though they are part of Carleton S. Coon's system, the other races should have their own page. If the races defined by Carleton S. Coon were all merged to his page, then it would be acceptable to do the same thing to the other race articles. -- I believe your logic here is faulty. There is plenty to say about Carleton S. Coon's races other than the fact that he defined them. There is hardly anything to say about the Wood Eaters race other than, as BillC puts it, "someone in the eighteenth century defined a race." Coon's races have large articles; the Wood Eaters article, for example, will never be anything more than a stub. --Lukobe 23:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll find some more information on Wood Eaters if I do more research.' -- Is that likely? --Lukobe 03:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that we don't think there's enough significance here to make an article. This seems to have been a once-off statement by Burnett, a man who was once described by Dr Samuel Johnson as "a man who talks a great deal about nonsense and doesn't know it". We could easily have a thousand articles on the subjects of once-off racial classifications. What is there that demonstrates the significance of this racial classification? Please understand that the comments you have been receiving on this and other issues are not the result of people trying to get at you, but rather that you should consider whether or not these contributions are encyclopaedic material. Perhaps they could be brought together in one article that in itself would be encyclopaedic? --BillC 04:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is important to have an extensive listing of historical race scientists racial classification schemes, becuase it is shows classification is just an opinion. From the book Race The History of an Idea in America, there are records of race scientists disagreeing with each other. Historical race scientists disagreed with each other on who were included in what races and how many races existed. This does not make one historical race system more important than another. All racial classification schemes are important because they show there are no objective races. This is why every historical racial classification scheme is beneficial to have in an encylcopedia.

I'd like to second what BillC says much more eloquently than I--we don't necessarily dispute that having this sort of information in Wikipedia is important and useful, but we disagree on the best way it should be presented. You think it's better to have a multiplicity of short articles, we favor fewer longer articles. People may even be more likely to come across your information if you fold it into the longer articles, which have multiple links pointing to them. Many of your new articles, on the other hand, appear to be linked to from nowhere. --Lukobe 06:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The Mongoloid article is 17kB; which makes it neither a long nor a short article. No-one, least of all Lukobe or I, is suggesting it be shortened. The reason why Mongoloid is not 'as short as all the other race articles' you have created is because the topic has significance: the material is encyclopaedic. Wood Eater race, at least in its present state, does not. This issue is not about Mongoloid, but rather the multitude of articles you have created, that lack incoming links, context or any assertion of the significance of their subject matter. --BillC 06:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the reason [Mongoloid] is long is not because the "topic has significance"...[Wood eaters and other similar racial classifications] have the same context as Coon's system. They are historical races nobody believes in anymore.

I must disagree. As Race (historical definitions) says, Coon's system is "the most widely referenced 20th century racial classification." It is the one most people know and think in terms of. But I think we're getting slightly off the point here. I can do no better than echo what BillC writes immediately above... --Lukobe 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Louis Agassiz Racial Definitions

Hey, thanks for making this template! -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 11:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Template Wizzard

I admit you are a wizzard on templates, but you should be carefull about how you build up your arguments. Where did you get the idea that "A New Division of the Earth" of François Bernier is a book.[[1]] Needless to say your conclusion about him being a "racial scientist" is a little bit shaky when only based on this particular observation. Would you also describe Herodotus as as a "racial scientist" -you might try it. He also came early, you know, and his observations were way more substantial than those of Bernier. If I remember "The Histories" correctly. Do not worry. All will be revealed, eventually. It's been nice talking to you. So long. (84.193.172.199 19:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

What is A New Division of the Earth? --Lukobe 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You answered The New Division of Earth was a book. I know this because the source also displayed a volume number next to the title. So you haven't read the actual book? Then why didn't you include a citation of your source in the article? --Lukobe 05:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dark Tichondrias, do you hold François Bernier to be "one of the first in a long line of racial scientists" because he is the first of the writers discussed in this book? --BillC 00:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You read part of: "Memoirs Read Before the Anthropological Society of London" -namely Vol 1 1863-64,pp 36O-64 the location of T.Bendyshe's translation of Bernier's contribution to "Journal des Scavans",April 24, 1684; which is basically a transcription of a letter to one of his friends. Only the first half of the letter is about racial classification, the other half is about (universal?) feminine beauty. see [2]

(84.193.172.199 11:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)) (moved from Lukobe's talk page)

Indian American

You should cite the books then instead of the website and create a reference section at the bottom of the page.--Dangerous-Boy 01:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Lapps race

Dark Tichondrias, are you sure Bernier called them the "Lapps race" when writing in French, not the "Lapp race"? Or did he merely call them the "Lapps"? Because "Lapps race" sounds like bad English to me. What's the actual citation from the book? --Lukobe 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So it should be "Lapp race," then, if it's not merged to "Sami people," which I still think it should. Any objections to moving it to "Lapp race"? --Lukobe 05:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To remember that François Bernier never wrote a book about racial classification would also be nice. Furthermore: [Importance of Historical Racial Definitions] (84.193.172.199 11:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Francois Bernier's first defined race

Just merged it into the main Francois Bernier article. I'm sure you must understand that in this case there could hardly be made an argument for a standalone article when the race wasn't even given its own name and you had to name it with a phrase? I strongly feel that the other articles you've created mostly need merging into larger articles--do you feel this should be discussed in a wider context than your talk page? I'm happy to see if that can be made possible. (Like BillC, I don't really want to go the AfD route.) --Lukobe 05:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to start doing this for other articles, like Anthropomorpha race, which even if it were decided should be a standalone article, should properly be "Homo anthropomorpha"--"Anthropomorpha race" isn't idiomatic. Thoughts? --Lukobe 04:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This article should probably be merged. His classifications would best be labeled with a "Homo" in front of it instead of the word race behind it.-- Dark Tichondrias 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad you agree. I'll start merging articles when I get some free time. --Lukobe 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Does not the argument about Bernier's NO-BOOK count for anything ? What makes you merge this BOOK thing without a doubt ? This is no longer sloppy editing it is intelectual dishonesty. THERE IS NO SUCH BOOK. (84.193.172.199 10:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Redirects

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that, when you make pages into redirects, you can't have a space between "#" and "REDIRECT". If you do, the redirect doesn't work. Thanks!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian

It seems like you are going all over the place trying to post wrong information. Actually, terms like "Caucasian" are still used in forensic anthropology and thus still in scientific use. [3] It doesn't matter what a textbook said as many textbooks can have an agenda. For example I know history textbooks that openly condemn the Viatnam war instead of remaining neutral. And Most Indians ARE caucasians. Ask any forensic anthropologist. So I will remove some of the other claims. Zachorious 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But forensic anthropology is science. That textbook may have said that but the fact that forensic anthropology is science is undeniable. Of course not everyoone in Europe North Africa, Middle East, and South Asia have that description. In some Eastern European countries there people with the epilitcal fold, usually only found in East/Southeast Asians and Amerindians! In Northeast India there are mongoloids and in the South there are negroids. However these people are in the minority and as a whole most Eastern Europe or India are Caucasian.

Terms like Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, ect. may not be widely used in science anymore. This is true. But they are still used to describe major phenotypes in forensic anthropology as well as clines. So while it may not be as widely used they are still in scientific use non the less. Zachorious 06:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you know any anthropologists that classify Indians as not caucasian? Nearly all classifications I see identify 97% of all Indians as Caucasian, with the South having some traces of Australoid (but still mostly Caucasian). The idea that South Indians are a distinct negroid race was an idea invented by British Colonialist in order to divide and conquer India. I will leave the "some and other anthrpologists" in the Caucasian-American article up for now but if you cannot find an anthropological source that shows Indians are a different race/cline, then I'll have to change it back. Zachorious 06:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many of these classifications come from Cloone's work. However nearly all forensic anthropologists use this system in one form of another. Some anthropologists use the terms; "Asian Man, African Man, European Man" but they all follow the same feature testing of Coone's book. I haven't heard "mongoloid" used as much anymore but caucasian (or caucasoid) and negroid are still widely used in forensic anthropology.

I stated "race/cline" not to equate the two terms, so don't get the wrong idea. The term "race" means many things to different people but as far as subspecies goes, yes there are no different racial subspecies. Zachorious 21:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Email

I noticed that you do not have wikipedia e-mail enabled. Nor do you make contact information available on your website. I'd like to contact you in a way that is not-so-public. Could you email me? I wouldn't mind if it was from a dummy account--I have something important to discuss with you.--Rockero 18:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No response, huh? The only reason I wanted to contact you privately was out of concern for your anonymity. Is there any possibility I can encourage you to e-mail me? Please?--Rockero 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know all the workings of computer viruses, but I am fairly certain that you have to download something from an e-mail in order to become infected. At any rate, I want to talk to you about one of your websites. Shall I just do it here?--Rockero 20:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it on more than one article?--Rockero 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding use of Image:Dreadlord-warcraft-iii-image.jpg and Image:Dreadlords.jpg

Kindly remove this picture from your userpage as this is a fair use image which can only be used on respective articlespace. Use of this image on your userpage infringes copyrights. See Wikipedia:Fair use under Policy 9.

Regards,--Dangerous-Boy 08:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Thanks for creating redirects to Asian American, but I don't believe anybody is going to spell "Asian" as "AZN". Regards, Mike Rosoft 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• I see you have been experimenting with Wikipedia. Your change was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Vegaswikian 19:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirects are for Wikipedia:Redirect#What_do_we_use_redirects_for.3F several listed reasons. Internet slang or shortcuts is not one of them. Vegaswikian 19:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If you think these deletes are not correct then you should use Wikipedia:Deletion review to have my actions reviewed. Vegaswikian 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • AZN is internet slang, not an alternate spelling. "Alternate spellings" refers mostly to differences between US and UK English, such as armor (US spelling) redirects to armour (UK spelling). Why don't you try User:SuggestBot to find something more productive to do than adding so many unneccesary redirects? Capable users will be able to find what they need without them. Timrem 21:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • • What I meant was, no one using a print encyclopdia would (I hope) expect to find the article they want on something "Asian" by looking up "AZN." In no formal sources would such language be used, either. Despite its open nature, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia. At the very least, I would suggest you add {{R from misspelling}} on the redirects you are creating. Also, the arguement you made to me, "'Slang' when spoken by Asians/ 'Alternative' when spoken by British," is nonsensical when put with the rest of your response. Be it Asian or British (or American or French or Spanish or Australian or whatever), internet slang is rarely spoken, and alternate spellings rarely affect how the word would be spoken anyway. Another thing: when responding to me, you yourself made a distinction between British language alternatives and Asian internet language. Official alternative spellings are worthy of redirects, internet language is not. BR Columbia, for example, does not redirect to British Columbia even though BR is used to stand for British. Like Zoe suggested, you should try to improve the articles you are creating these redirects to instead of adding infinitly many redirects. And I do not "discriminate against the Asian race" as you have claimed, I simply try to help make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can be. Timrem 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
          • A few points:
            1. AZN does not uniquely mean Asian, it can also stand for Azerbaijani manat
            2. I was not looking for a good analogy, and BR Columbia was the best I thought of in a short amount of time
            3. Spelling dictates pronunciation in real life, not the other way around
            4. Instead of addressing the point I made, you just disputed my means of making that point
          • ...and a few errors:
            1. BR is not an acronym, acronyms are pronounced as if they are words
            2. BR Columbia would obviously refer to British Columbia (not Berium Renewal Columbia or whatever), just as Azn American would refer to Asian American in internet slang.
            3. Azn is slang, see AZN
          • I hope this clears things up. Timrem 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • What is with the godzillian Asian American redirects? 'Asain'? This article does not warrent fifty redirects, you're just going to have to assume people can spell. Czolgolz 20:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

okay, but how many redirects does one article need? YOu have at least twenty tagged for speedy deletion. Czolgolz 20:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP! Especially when all of your redirects are misspelled. It's Bhutan, not Butan. It's Asian, not Asain. It's Hmong, not Mong. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies do not allow for ridiculous numbers of misspelled redirections. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, those articles you're creating multitudes of redirects to are only one-sentence microstubs with no content. Why not spend your time actually creating content in those articles instead of creating huge numbers of ridiculous redirects? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

DT, I must agree with the other posters here. While I don't think your redirects need deleting (I think they're harmless), I also think they're kind of a waste of your time. Wikipedia will benefit far more from your fleshing out the articles these redirects point to than from your creation of the redirects themselves (especially the more implausible ones). --Lukobe 05:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You've created hundreds of redirects from Spanish titles. These are absolutely unnecessary. Please stop, now. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Asiaphile see also links

Just because they're slurs (egg) or perversions (Asian fetish, though I bet some would disagree with you on just what constitutes a perversion) doesn't mean they're not related to Asiaphile--they're very related. The egg article as much as says egg is synonymous with Asiaphile except for the pejorative nature of the former. --Lukobe 21:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

STOP ADDING REDIRECTS

Stop adding redirects from Spanish-language versions of names. There is no reason to believe that anyone would type these phrases into the English wikipedia to look for the article in English. The appropriate thing to do is to link from the Spanish wikipedia to the English articles. As it stands you are only creating immense amounts of work for others who will have to go through deleting the redirects you have created. You have been asked to desist before, if you don't heed this advice you will be blocked from editing. The Land 08:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have noted the message you have placed on your User page. Disliking the Spanish Wikipedia's policies is not an excuse to disrupt this one. We also have a policy, WP:POINT, which says 'don't disrupt the Wikipedia to make a point', even about other language encyclopedias. The Land 09:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I Reread policy

It says English redirects to Spanish pages, not the other way around, so no more Spanish-language redirects.--_Dark Tichondrias 09:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The Land 09:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Asiaphile Asian Love.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Asiaphile Asian Love.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races Teresa Lourenco Inter-American Defense Board Black Muslim Carl Meinhof Asian Pride NAAAP Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research Pierre-André Taguieff Sexual objectification The Bounty Wild type Phigus Simenon Koryak language Macanese people Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture José Vasconcelos Cheyenne Silver Peru Highway 1

Cleanup Race in biomedicine Nisei Japanese American Rob Schneider Merge Mansions of Rastafari Racial purity Ethnic Japanese Add Sources Multiracial List of Japanese Americans List of Vietnamese Americans Wikify Filipino Chinese cuisine Mark Rudd Kirant Expand Contemporary views on race Azeroth (world) Letter of the two sorries

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Asian Pro-Contrary

just curious what your division of watched users into the above categories means. --Lukobe 08:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

deletion of all ethnic categories

Have you noticed what is being proposed to be done to all the categories named 'xxx people by ethnic or national origin' (such as Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and all ethnic/national origin subcategories?

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 20

There does not seem to be anyone interested in this, but me. Are you? Do you know others? Thanks Hmains 04:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

INCOTW

You voted for Indian American, this week's Indian Colloboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Race (U.S. Census)

Please cease your change from Asian to Asian American and White to White American. Not all Asians counted in the U.S. Census are Americans and not all whites are Americans! Stop now. I will revert your changes in a bit. Please cease from changing the U.S. Cencus information. 12.40.26.171 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You do know that white people came from Europe or do you not know this. Not all white people in the U.S. are Americans. If I came to the U.S. from Germany and filled out the census while in the U.S., I would mark "white" but I am not a white American. Stop your changes now! 12.40.26.171 15:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am really not from Germany—that was only an example. The person would only be an American if he/she becomes a U.S. citizen. 12.40.26.171 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Same for Asians, not all Asians in the United States are Americans. 12.40.26.171 15:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not stopped changing these things. Please cease now! 12.40.26.171 15:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not done reverting your edits yet—I will continue later when I get home and sign on as a registered user. Just know that I will be monitoring all of your edits from now on! Have a great day. 12.40.26.171 15:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop changing Caucasian to white or Caucasian to white American. The rest of the Western world (including Australia) use the term "Caucasian" over white. It is only in the U.S. that the term "white" is more popular. The term Caucasian is a more precise term for the racial designation by the world and scientists, not "white." 12.40.26.171 15:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

On the European American page, not all European Americans are white. 12.40.26.171 16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take a class in college dealing with race and ethnicity before you continue to change racial/origin terms in articles. Are you or have you been in college yet? 12.40.26.171 16:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you would learn so much more about this issue if you take a class on it. It can be very interesting! Or at least read about it in textbooks if you are not at age or have graduated from college. No personal attacks there at all. Just reality! 12.40.26.171 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought we came to an agreement. Why are you re-inserting back the term and reverting my reverts? 12.40.26.171 16:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you that not all white people in the U.S. are Americans? 12.40.26.171 16:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

USC

USC has an international student population that hovers near 10% of its 28k students. These include large numbers from the Pacific Rim and a big contingent from the UK and Europe. Assuming the breakdown is "____-American" isn't really going to work in the context of the student population breakdown. --Bobak 16:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for understanding. Happy editing! --Bobak 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Kitchener, Ontario

Thank you for experimenting with the page Kitchener, Ontario on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Paul Cyr 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you putting "American" terms in Canadian articles? --Lukobe 19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It was in this article, Kitchener. That's what Cyr is talking about. --Lukobe 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Racemap.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Racemap.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Jkelly 23:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Personal Attack by Jkelly and Musical Linguist

This following unsigned comment by User:Dolgo Xwost has been unnecessarily removed by two users, User:Jkelly and User:Musical Linguist because they believe it is against the policy Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, but this is not official policy. The actual policy states,"The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly."--Dark Tichondrias

Personal attack by banned user removedCheers! Jkelly 00:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is a wiki. Comments may be edited here. If you really want a guideline in the Wikipedia namespace that specificies what may be removed from your userspace, see Wikipedia:Userpage, but common sense should tell you that we don't want to be publishing scatalogical attacks on editors left here by banned users. Jkelly 00:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi there. I've noticed that you added a userbox to the listing at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality. Would you mind if I also included that userbox at User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Sexuality? —Mira 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood me. I don't want to copy the userbox, I just want to add a link to it from my page. —Mira 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you mind if I did the same thing with your cross-dressing box? —Mira 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Eurasian Genetic Supercluster

This page was removed from Wikipedia before I even had an opportunity to view it (my guess is JWB is the culprit). I would suggest that a single sentence mention of this proposed supercluster of population should be added to the Eurasian page, as JWB will not allow any mention of it elsewhere. -- Gerkinstock 02:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Salazar's Castle

Just so you know, I am removing the picture of the island from Salazar's Castle. It serves no purpose as Salazar's Castle is not on the island and the island is not under any control by Salazar. Best regards, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 02:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

European-American

By your logic regarding Christina Aguilera been Eropean-American, then almost every latin america could also be considered european-american. Correct?, by the way notice that I haven't changed anything in the articles, i'm just asking. Cjrs 79 01:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi Dark Tichondrias. Please stop adding copyrighted pictures to the Asian people article (or any other). It is not fair use to use these pictures in articles which aren't about the people they depict. It goes against Wikipedia's copyright policy. They need to be removed or replaced with free pics. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

your self-portrait on Asian people

it makes us look unreliable the same way your drawings of Asians on the Asian American page made us look unreliable. The art looks unprofessional. --Lukobe 00:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you put it back, someone else is just going to take it off. --Lukobe 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tripartite Asian and Bipartite Asian

I'm looking at Google hits for "tripartite asian". There are only 238. They seem to fall into these categories:

• Your uses in Wikipedia and mirrors. Not usable as references.
• Your own website.
• ILO Tripartite Asian Regional Seminar. It's not clear what "Tripartite" means here as it's listed only as a book title, but I can't find evidence that it's the meaning you are using. Maybe the seminar has three parts.
• References to an alliance of Russia, India, and China. This is not the meaning of EA/SEA/SA that you're using.
• Someone's blog where they appear to be talking about a group of three friends.

"bipartite asian" gets only 7 hits.

• your Wikipedia usage
• two-part Asian and African musical instruments exhibition
• spam sites with nonsense text.

I have to conclude the words are neologisms (Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms)and original research (WP:OR). --JWB 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Attitude

By the way, User:Dark Tichondrias, I must remark that your attitude is very "WASPY", doing everything only "in accordance" to everything, and pretending to be "civil"- thinking that you are taking some sort of "ethical", "high road". That's not a "personal" attack, is it? Pretending to follow some kind of convention while being overly defensive about nothing may reveal some kind of guilt or pathology on your part. Why so angry and defensive? I think the discussion pages should be for issues not fully discussed. ie. for instance, why you are insistant on how the Asian people page has to conform to your standards, on not to others. And I must remark, that anonymous edito'rs comments on the Asian page was just silly and uncalled for, and not specifically aimed at anyone. AND YET, YOU interpreted it as a "personal attack"? What kind of pathology are you experiencing? Maybe you are guilty of something. Le Anh-Huy 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What Le Anh-Huy said is my reply as well.--D-Boy 04:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Dark Tichondrias, please, let's come to a consensus on issues, and please don't spread your original research around Wikipedia. --Lukobe 16:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

three-region map

The three region map illustrates the point of the section called who calls themself Asian in the Asian people article.

It doesn't really add to the article, though. Sometimes illustrations are unnecessary. --Lukobe 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

watching users

Hi there, Just curious why you're "watching" us... --Lukobe 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello? --Lukobe 19:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Some users edits are more watch-worthy.--Dark Tichondrias 19:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice way of putting it :) --Lukobe 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack on MFD against Nathan

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. — The King of Kings 04:11 June 25 '06

For the record.

For the record, I'm bi (I can go either way relationship-wise) but asexual (don't care about sex - it is not a big part of my life, nor will it ever be). I neither like nor dislike anal sex. I don't care about it, but that shouldn't be read as a dislike (it shouldn't be read as a like either, I just don't see the appeal). You get the idea.

However, this should not be read as: "I don't like it, I don't want anything to do with it, so I allow that to affect my decisions on Wikipedia." — Nathan ^(talk) 04:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The MfD is especially not for that. Please re-read WP:MfD. The MfD/AfD/anything "for deletion" is only a discussion about whether something should be deleted/kept/archived somewhere/userfied/etc. All that is required from you is either keep/delete/etc and a brief (brief! not extensive! not three-four paragraphs, brief) rationale. I don't think you're getting the idea so please, please read WP:MfD again. Thank you. — Nathan ^(talk) 06:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Asiaphile site

http://www.xanga.com/cec32

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/369114013/football-season.html

"It seems that I've had the honor of having a new title bestowed upon me recently. You can see just what that is here at this chick's site in her Oct 12th entry. She's the leader of an adorable blogring composed mainly of exotic little sex kittens entitled "STOP FETISHIZING US ASIANS" whose members claim that they "are tired of being FETISHIZED" and want to know that they're hot as "individuals" and are NOT "exotic little sex kittens" (Reading that one had me rolling on the floor). If this sexy bunch (35 members strong, so far) of Oriental dolls only knew just how arousing they really are by denouncing guys like me I'm sure they would immediately shut their blogring down. However, I sure hope that doesn't happen. In fact....I hope I've helped their recruitment. Mmmm!"

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/390745403/a-poll-for-those-of-us-who-have-a-thing-for-asian-girls.html

"A few weeks ago I mentioned the sexy leader of an adorable Xanga blogring mostly composed of exotic little sex kittens (I say "mostly" because there are currently two male members) entitled "STOP FETISHIZING US ASIANS" , who honored and distinguished me with a very special title after I left a comment on her site. Well, recently I was viewing the group's membership (35 strong, so far) and was having a difficult time deciding which one of these Far Eastern cuties is the most appealing (in a strictly carnal sense) and decided that I would create a poll for the visitors to my site to respond to."

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/429780864/a-rarity-and-yes-im-still-reading-the-above.html

"It's not too often that I post pictures of NON-Asian chicks in my entries here..."

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/452937793/the-chamber-of-horrors.html

"I was recently asked (in an adorable Far Eastern accent) by a young cutie to have her image and name removed from an entry of mine at this site..."

http://www.xanga.com/CEC32/472508031/new-poll.html

North Korean women and South Korean women are NOT different ethnicities. It is a political division.