User talk:Hammy64000/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hammy64000! I am Dillard421 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Patriarchy, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please read WP:AGF - and more importantly, don't rise to the bait. Stick to discussion of the article and not other editors or their ideas. Difficult in this case, but important. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on Talk:Patriarchy: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please stop. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to come back to the patriarchy article. You won't have to worry about Alastair for a while. Kaldari (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you back at the patriarchy article. I was afraid Alistair had scared everyone off! Hope you don't take my revision of your edit as anything personal. I just think the related terms section has grown quite unwieldy. Maybe it should just be deleted entirely. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take it personally--your revision makes sense. It probably would be good to delete the related terms section as it still contains inaccurate information. --Hammy64000 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Who blocked my IP address? I can't believe it. Kildari, did you?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I haven't blocked anyone recently. If you want to give me the IP over email (or on my talk page), I can find out what happened for you. Kaldari (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for cleaning up the patriarchy article. I had tried to implement revisions back when Alastair was dominating it, but I gave up. Nice to see it so... balaced. Maybe my faith in Wikipedia has been restored. Neuromusic (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

When the right's away the left will play.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to propose a rewrite, you can put it at Patriachy/draft and link to it from the talk page. Hope that helps. Kaldari (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You should really put your article on your own user page, not in the article space. It's bound to be viewed as a duplicate and deleted or redirected. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Having the article in Userspace is fine, but it shouldn't be on your user page. I'll fix it... Kaldari (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Added some comments here. Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:Patriarchy. Kaldari (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why this comment is here at the end. Your concerns about Aristotle have already been answered.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification AND amendment: Alastair Haines Kaldari (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah the very busy and charming slakr sinebot. See, um, everyone is busy, but many of us get our work done. So now clear up your pretense of helping on "Virgin birth (mythology)" so my comments show up on the talk page.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Hammy, all your questions and more are answered at Wikipedia:LEAD. That guideline should serve you well for crafting proper article leads. Kaldari (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Virgin birth (mythology). Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Ari (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Virgin birth (mythology). If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Calm down. Ari (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alastair Haines 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He is referring to my deleting requests for page number, which according to user:Wnt should not have been there in the first place.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Miraculous births, you will be blocked from editing. Ari (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Miraculous births for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Ari (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Miraculous births. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SpigotMap 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RE the comment left on my talk page: I don't have to read the article or the talk page to see that you and another editor are engaging in an edit war. You and the other editor are on the verge of violating WP:3RR Which you've already done in the past days. This is a content dispute, not vandalism or WP:BLP issue, so there is no reason to continue the edit war. SpigotMap 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Miraculous_births. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. SpigotMap 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

SpigotMap, stop leaving private messages. That goes for you too Ari. If you have something to say, say it in the appropriate discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I will leave messages regarding the content of an article on the article talk page as I have already. Warnings regarding your editing and conduct will continue to be left here. Thanks! SpigotMap 15:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I started to look at this request but found it impossible to figure out from your description on WP:THIRD, from the talk page discussion and from the history of the article what specifically is under dispute. Is there any chance you could concisely state what the issue is? Third opinions are generally about content issues, rather than about user conduct. Thparkth (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I was specifically asking about "Patriarchy" though :) Thparkth (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia the term "move" has a special meaning (see WP:MOVE), and I didn't understand what happened. I saw that you did in fact do the work at Virgin birth (mythology) which was merged into the Miraculous births article. I apologize for not realizing that this work was yours! Wnt (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Hammy64000, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SpigotMap 15:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who really reads any of these discussions will see what you are up to. Sound as official as you can--it makes no difference.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to give you some tips on editing here. You are the one who is being uncooperative with other editors, as well as attacking and making unfounded accusations. SpigotMap 15:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How old are you?--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bring my conduct up at WP:ANI if you wish to continue making accusations. As far as personal information see WP:OUTING or risk being blocked indefinitely. SpigotMap 15:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Spigotmap, what is the difference between Hammy64000's refactoring[1] and yours[2]? Hammy64000 does need to be more civil and does need to move away from taking things personally, but this is not easy when the people teaching these Wikipedia policies to him are doing things like this. Wnt (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to SpigotMap's edit summary:[3] it's not a matter of whether it's pictures of cookies or monkeys - the point is, you added the picture within Hammy64000's comments, appearing beside them —— immediately after rebuking him for adding his own headline inside your comments. Wnt (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This will never stop. Please look at the big picture. Check claims about sources and inaccuracies. Read the discussions carefully.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Something happened yesterday that ties together several threatening things that have been going on around here. If you read this and still think it would help to go through the arbitration process, just let me know. First, I was not born with the gene where I react to threats by running away, especially when I know I'm in the right. But I do want to let as many people as possible know the facts. Basically, these are the clues I want to leave in case anything happens to me:

It started when I said on the Patriarchy talk page that I would reject Steven Goldberg as a source (15:49, 21 December 2009), although before that time, I had had an unusual number of issues with my Internet connection. I also announced in the discussion that I was ordering his book. Wouldn't do that again! After ordering this book there was a fraudulent charge of $149.00 on my card. My bank recovered it and I cancelled my cards. If the wrong people were selling that used book, they would have my address that way. Also, my street address was on my email when I enquired about Goldberg with City College.

In January I started getting official-looking packets and notices that my property was in foreclosure. Someone also started leaving hand-made notes, unstamped and with no return address, saying to call a number for help with my mortgage. It is a fellony to open a mailbox. I think they looked at the property records in my town to do this, because this legal description was part of an acre that had been divided off and still had this address. They wouldn't have known this. There is a company here that services investors of repo houses and they had the lot scheduled for auction on Feb 24, or so. I consistently got those handmade notes from that time, even though I called the bank, Indymac, and the loan company in San Diego, Quality Loans, and told them to stop having someone open my mailbox. (When calling them, I never got a recording or never had to wait to speak to someone. This never happens with this kind of company.) At the end of February I called to see when that auction was, and there was no sign of that property on their records. It was not cancelled or postponed--just not there.

Also during this time someone has consistently gone through my trash. They leave the lid open so I will know it. Once they took the bags on the top. I moved the trash can into my yard and one morning the lid was open again. Now it is inside my fence. Once I was driving down the road from my house and a couple in a dirty car with shaded windows was driving toward my house. I stopped, but instead of smiling or asking directions they sat there like statues and kept going. It is a dead-end road. I waited for them to turn around and got their license plate number and called the police. The officer didn't tell me who they were but said they live close to me. This is interesting, because a few times at Wikipedia I got a message that someone with my IP address was a vandal, but when I sign in I have no problem.

Yesterday, some paunchy, skanky-looking guy came to my door. He called me by name and acted very familiar. He mentioned my neighbors. He said he was selling a health-insurance savings plan. I had a feeling he might have something to do with my recent discussions on Wikipedia. Today I went to my neighbor's house. He said this guy had asked him my name and age. My neighbor said the guy was very strange. The neighbor also told me the guy came back this morning, took pictures of my property and put something in my mailbox. When I got the mail there was another handmade notice there like I was getting before.

On one hand, I'm amazed; I am the last person on earth I would chose to have for an enemy. I have found people of good will here, but many people give way too much information on their user pages. I've tried to be anonymous here, but I think I'm in real danger. I suggest a restructuring of this cite. You just know there are people who want to push an agenda here. Don't let them.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should call your local authorities. You're just full of conspiracy theories, it's amazing. SpigotWho? 18:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you need professional help. Either you need the police, or you need a doctor. --Deskana (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you may have real problems, but not from here! From what you say it is very possible that some scum went through your trash and is trying to rip off your credit cards, maybe other things (bank statements...?) They might have taken out a loan fraudulently in your name, hence the mysteriously vanishing foreclosure claims. Either that our your neighbor is doing some seriously obnoxious Psy Ops. But I don't believe for a minute that this has anything to do with this Wikipedia dispute - these editing disputes happen day in and day out, every day, and nobody escalates these things to such extremes. Note: the real address to get your credit report for free by federal law is annualcreditreport.com. Might not be a bad idea. Wnt (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, I have taken precautions. I've also filed police reports. That is not the point. I hope you are right that there is no connection to this discussion, but as I said, it is only a trail of breadcrumbs and may never be needed.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

But don't you think I should be the one to decide my neighbor's reliability? How can your opinion about him be relevant here, when you don't know him and I do?--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Psy Ops?--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to leave him out of this. He knows nothing about this situation and would probably wonder what all this fuss was about. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, I think I may have read you wrong. I don't know if your absence after my last remark was stunned silence or if you just went somewhere...I can't afford to be rude to people who try to help me out on articles. Sorry if I got it wrong.--Hammy64000 (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't say anything rude - I don't know your neighbor and my comment was purely speculation. What I meant was only to allow for that conceivably some assailant didn't actually go through your garbage and commit fraud, but only opened the bin and left some fake note to make it look like he had. But I think that's unlikely anyway. Psy ops is the military term; there's a certain sort of humorous sense in which it applies to obnoxious pranks. (The article here doesn't mention it, but during COINTELPRO psy ops degenerated into more bizarre tactics (they started off mailing activists their pictures with cross-hairs added and ended up mass-mailing little notes like 'Beware! The Siberian Beetle.... but I digress) Wnt (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya know, it is a lot like psy ops...:)--Hammy64000 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the start of the modern story was with the English Revolution, or perhaps with the Reformation. Protestants overthrew Papal authority on the continent, English Protestants later led the way by overthrowing their king. It is mildly ironic that Oliver Cromwell and his Parlimentarians are the origin of modern democracy. Historians do not hold Cromwell up as an archetype of a democratic ruler. But the point is, certainly modern writing, in English, regarding the value of men and women within society starts thinking decidedly outside the box from this time of social upheaval. It is a strand worth some attention in this article, especially in so far as it addresses antecedents to second wave feminist theories about, and challenges to, patriarchy. I'm not sure I'm so keen on your thesis that anyone ever proposes social structures on the basis of robbing people of freedom. That's precisely what they often achieve, but not what they advertise, for obvious reasons. Even in Nazi Germany, they had to downgrade people to being Untermensch before justifying the theft of their dignity, property and life. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked him to elaborate, but he never did. Doesn't matter to me what you say, who knows what your allegiances are here? My warning stands.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I just read your post to Kaldari's talk page.

I am not Ari. I give you permission to have a WP:CheckUser done on my account.

Do not leave Wiki! I need your help at Patriarchy. I think we can work together if you WP:AGF, we take it slow and we get to know one another. You are doing exactly the right thing with the History section: you are attempting a literature review and I want to help you with it.

I will look at the article where Ari is bugging you, and see if I can help you. If I can't I'll do nothing there. If I can help you I will. If we work together on the same side for a while, it will make it much easier to work on something where you suspect me of things that are not true.

Alastair Haines (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I would have appreciated your help at any time this article was being worked on but we never calmly discussed anything. You need my help? --Hammy64000 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be busy for a while--I'll check this discussion later.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's stay in touch. At the moment I don't need your help, but when I get back to the Patriarchy article I will. Please, can we work together to make it a WP:FAC?

But any time, please feel free to ask me for help. I'm particularly keen to help at Virgin birth (mythology). I don't know enough to have much input, but I want to learn, and also to find extra sources for you. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I award this Diplomacy Barnstar to Hammy for an outstanding demonstration of neutrality: BUYING a book to verify a source for a "detestable" POV. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Alistair, I made a few comments on your last message in Patriarchy. I appreciate your new approach to working on this. --Hammy64000 (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on Miraculous births and Patriarchy have gotten pretty interesting.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, friend.

Thanks for your very sensible comments on my talk page.

Sorry I've not replied before now. I moved house last weekend and have only just got back online a couple of hours ago.

I hope to poke my nose into discussions within the next 24 hours or so.

Best wishes, alastair. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If any parties have any relevant information to add, now is the time. Several arbitrators have spoken up in ArbCom's discussions that the facts of this case are clear, and that providing this additional time would be not useful. I strongly urge all parties to provide any further evidence and workshop proposals they have, and quickly. I will post this to all parties talk page and will update when any proposed final decision is available. (this is a note I've provided to all parties to attempt to give as much notices as possible of a proposed decision being moved up). SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is a message to let you know that the proposed decision in the Alastair Haines 2 case has been posted. Please see this link for the proposed decision and to view the arbitrator's votes on this case. SirFozzie (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

• User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
• Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
• To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not considered good form to post warning templates to established editors as you did to Slrubenstein - it is particularly rude to use templates meant for first time editors or vandals such as you did. This is clearly not a case of vandalism it is a content dispute. You and Slrubenstein are obvious not in agreement about what the patriarchy article should contain, but simpky reverting eachothers edits is not going to change that. Slrubenstein gave an explanation of why he removed the material - he considered them being in conflict with our policies of NPOV and NOR. If you have doubts about why he might feel that you should really try to ask him to explain himself better instead of reverting and posting warning templates at his user page. Anyway your template was wrong as Slrubenstein did provide explanations in the edit summary and on the talk page when he removed content. You should really try to establish a collaboration with Slrubenstein instead of a conflict - he is probably the most knowledgeable editor we have about this subject as he is a professor of anthropology and has worked particularly with gender in amazonian societies (some of which have been described as egalitarian). ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a warning? I know that you two work together. Hopefully the problem is a simple one, ie. you did not read the discussion and see the material that was blanked. I can't be expected to know this person's status, only his behavior at this particular time. He is either biased, or mistaken.Hammy64000 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, thats not what a warning looks like. This was a reminder about etiquette.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User_talk:Slrubenstein, you may be blocked from editing. SpigotMap 21:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not edit war at Patriarchy. I have tried to engage in a constructive dialogue with you on the talk page which you have disregarded. Your massive changes to the consensus version violate policy. Slow down, discuss them one at a time on the talk page, and take a collaborative approach to editing at Wikipedia. Cheers! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please take care to be less agressive in pursuing your vision of the perfect article. In particular, when other editors opine that no weight should be given to an issue, please seek sources that will unambiguously establish the connection to the present article, or simply add the material to a different article. You might also consider creating a draft of your preferred version of a page, working on that until it is presentable, and then requesting input from additional editors at the talkpage, an appropriate WikiProject, or via a request for comment. The live version of any article should be presentable at all times - there is no deadline, and so no particular need to keep synthesized or insufficiently sourced material in an article while it is discussed. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see this is fixed. I am sorry I ever heard of Wikipedia. I'm sorry you all can't think beyond the ends of your noses, or of other appendages. Do you think this constitutes rude behavior and that I should be blocked? Who cares? Keep your ridiculous little encyclopedia. Everyone knows it's a sham.Hammy64000 (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since 1974, critics have questioned Goldberg’s methods and suggested exceptions to his universal patriarchal scenario, although under his “ground rules” exceptions are irrelevant. Goldberg’s peers noted that he included few “comparable models of genetic and social change”…making theoretical argument difficult. ^[1] On the publication of E. O. Wilson’s book, scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould objected that many of Wilson’s claims had been made repeatedly, and thoroughly refuted, referring to the works of Herbert Spencer, Konrad Lorenz, and Robert Ardry. Because these refutations had so little effect on the subsequent claims of sociobiologists, Gould and others began to accuse them of serving a social and political agenda. ^[2] In fact, after the publication of Wilson’s book, Business Week published an article entitled "A Genetic defense of the free market," (April 10, 1978), while Newsweek and Time both ran articles on sociobiology, commenting on the inevitability of male dominance. ^[3]

The debate was even older than Gould implied. According to archaeologist V. Gordon Childe, it began in the eighteenth century, when ethnographers proposed a hierarchic order for societies modeled on the order established by Linnaeus and Bouffon for Natural History. Subsequently, Lamarck theorized that such hierarchies were the result of evolution. Childe said "(Lamarck’s) theory was in effect from the first a rationalist protest against theological dogmas of supernatural intervention." Of course the protest only became influential after Darwin and Wallace "propounded" a mechanism for natural selection. ^[4]

Anton Pannekock provides a more disturbing insight from the Marxist point of view. He said that Darwinism was a tool of the bourgeoisie in their struggle against the feudal class, the nobility, clergy and feudal lords. Of course the bourgeoisie were not the exploited class. The bourgeoisie, or the leaders of industry, wanted to rule. ^[5] While it is true that John Locke, for example, argued against Filmer’s divine kingship, his argument was not really a defense of the rights of women. Instead, Locke claimed that women knowingly and voluntarily gave up their rights through the marriage contract. In Locke’s scheme, married women were to have no property rights. This would ensure their cooperation and also provide surety for inheritance of property, through the father. (Cite Sydie or Locke) Childe’s archaeological description of the family is relevant here. There is a difference between the natural family consisting of parents and children, a biological necessity, and the family as an institution. The institutional family is a unit of co-operation, and a vehicle for the transmission of male property and status. When the state becomes the more dominant influence, the natural family, or the clan, degenerates.

Marx published his Materialist Conception of History in 1859; the year Darwin published the Origin of Species. He formed his theory, in part, from his knowledge of the history of civilized societies, but for his ethnographies of primitive people he relied on Lewis Henry Morgan. Morgan’s, method was flawed, although he had made some improvements on the methods of the English ethnographers. His conclusions, however, illustrated Marx’s Materialist interpretation of history.

For the ultimate aims of Marxism we have the report of Peter Kropotkin. Eventually, two factions developed in the International Workingmen’s Association. The Latin countries remained federalist, but after the War of 1870 parliamentary rule had been introduced in "united Germany" and the Germans made an effort to modify the aims and methods of the whole socialist movement, resulting in the party of the Social Democrats. The governing body was a general council residing at London, with Engels and Marx as its leading spirits. The party’s new focus was the conquest of power within the existing states. The Social Democrats worked within the political process for "centralization as against federalism," and in economics for the state management of railways and the state monopoly of banking and of the sale of spirits. The next step would be the state management of the land and of the leading industries and "even of the consumption of riches." For Kropotkin the determination to control industry represented state socialism, or rather, state capitalism. "It was the necessary conflict between the principles of federalism and those of centralization, the free commune and the state’s paternal rule, the free action of the masses of the people and the betterment of existing capitalist conditions through legislation--a conflict between the Latin spirit and the German Geist, which…claimed supremacy in science, politics, philosophy, and in socialism too, representing its own conception of socialism as 'scientific,' while all other interpretations it described as 'utopian.'" ^[6]

Sociobiologist Steven Pinker’s book, The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature,” published in 2002, continued the debate between sociobiology and its critics. ^[7]

To the truth seeker: This seemed to strike a nerve when I posted it in the Patriarchy discussion. Therefore, it must be a literary snuggy for sociobiologists. Oh my goodness little lambs. Do you still think Wikipedia is all good clean fun? These people will not be satisfied with your snowy, white fleece. They will not rest until they have cut up your tasty flesh and put it to simmer in their infernal lamb stew.

And by the way, for anyone who is interested, the hooligan parade obviously includes Slrubenstein, Manus, Dougweller, Spigotmap, Ari89, and possibly Pinky and the Brain.Hammy64000 (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Be advised, making personal attacks while blocked is only going to bring an even longer block against you along with your ability to edit this talk page being revoked. SpigotMap 16:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You are still posing as a bonifide editor? Amazing! Readers, I am finished responding to these creatures. It is like talking to the Borg--extremely creepy. Please see where I reported the edit war in patriarchy. You may find it interesting.[4]Hammy64000 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of when someone calls the cops to have them arrest someone, but the calling party themselves gets arrested. Irony? Also, try to avoid circumventing blocks as you did on Talk:Patriarchy as that will get you blocked even longer. SpigotMap 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean reader? They think you can't figure it out and that you will accept their hogwash. It's up to you. By the way, check out SpigotMap's archived discussion pages. They are full of warnings and blocks. Apparently all he does is mess with people. He must archive the pages to hide the warnings.Hammy64000 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's it, there's no reason for archiving anything except hiding the truth. Who are you campaigning against? You are the one who has been blocked for being disruptive. I could just delete the information, would that hide it better? SpigotMap 16:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if that wasn't the reason, why did you archive such a short discussion? Also, why are you watching my talk page? Check out this archived page everyone.[5]Hammy64000 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If a topic is no longer active, it can be archived, that is my decision. About watching your page; I think you're hilarious, very interesting to watch your next moves. SpigotMap 17:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Now SpigotMap thinks he is like the police. Hmmm...Hammy64000 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out SpigotMap's archived discussion page! In fact, check them all. He is fascinated by my talk page. He just can't stand to be away from me.[6]Hammy64000 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even editing anything and I don't plan to edit here any more and he still can't get enough of me. I think he has a crush on me.Hammy64000 (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop exposing me, first my secret archived pages that are under secret links called "Archive" on my talk page, and now exposing my love for you. You're going to ruin my Wiki career! SpigotMap 17:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We have to stop meeting like this.Hammy64000 (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideas and sourced material shouldn't be threatening to anyone, even if they disagree with someone's opinion or belief. Merges, deletions and blocks are one way that disagreements are handled. However, if calm discussion can't be had, those tactics only convey a lack of confidence in the corresponding position. Any strong position will have strong sources for support. If one source is not accepted, find another one. They are out there.

Also, if there is a reliable source who says, 'B', and another editor knows another source that argues, 'A', that is the makings of a good article--not a reason for a feud.

Even in matters of faith...If a source argues that 'A' doesn't exist, it does not mean that 'A' really does not exist. The determination of the existence of 'A' is not the point, and in some cases is not possible. The point of an encyclopedia must be to include enough relevant arguments that you have a fair and balanced article. Anything else is censorship. Censorship not only implies a lack of faith in one's own position, but a lack of faith in a reader's ability to think for himself. It makes the whole endeavor suspect. Hammy64000 (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I realized just today that some information about Hammy64000 has been showing up on the Internet. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but the info was one-sided. If anyone would like more information, please see the recent ANI where my block was re-instated. [7] The history of the recent article conflict is there, with links.Hammy64000 (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is one version of Virgin birth (mythology), which was merged into Miraculous births. [8] It has been deleted from my user page. Hammy64000 (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.