`  ==Etiquette== Your statement ``I keep my conviction that I'm on the truth: that you two are members of some racist organization`` on this edit directed toward User:Dark Tichondrias  is an accusation that two users are racists, making it against Wikipedia's policy on etiquette.  Wikipedia's policy on etiquette suggests to not accuse other users of being racist.  :WP:Wikiettiquete says: ::Terms like ``racist,`` ``sexist`` or even ``poorly written`` make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner. :This seems to be the issue of dispute. Yet racism is at the heart of this discussion, specially because DT and Thulean are percieved by all the rest as people with such an agenda.  :I'm pondering to start a project called WP:Honesty: Say things clear (without falling in insults), don't hide in word games, don't make threats that make no sense (bravados), don't edit capriciously ignoring the discussion, etc. Play fair and demand others to do the same.  :You pretend that I'm making ad hominem attacks, yet I'm just pointing out who's misbehaving and why. Something that is obvious to all, including you two. :If you would be even minimally sincere you would not be trying to corner me against arbitrarily selected Wikipolicies but you would have protested your innocence, first of all. You are just playing legalism. :If you want me to refrain from denouncing your behaviour and your agenda the least your could do is to  is to protest your innocence, to explain your reasons, to pretend at least that you are not racist. But you only make attacks ad hominem against my honesty and sincerity. :Keep it that way. I don't mind.    ==Personal Attacks==  Please refrain from personal attacks which you made in Talk:White_people. Or next time you will be reported to WP:DP.   :I am not making any personal attacks. I honestly think you are a nazi (or close equivalent, if you want to dwell in the small letter and word twists). You haven't even bothered in denying it, so why should I think otherwise.  :If you think that stating that is a personal attack, please say why. I don't think that openly declaring the (apparent) truth is any personal attack but just that: stating facts, so we can discuss honestly. :What is being discussed in that article's talk page is largely ideological and some people of certain ideology (you and DarkTichondrias) are trying to manipulate the participative process of Wikipedia in your favor, editing ignoring the consensus. I honestly believe it is my duty to fight such behaviour and defend the neutrality of Wikipedia. And I will do it.   :If you still arent satisfied, you can ask a request for investigation, but I must warn it can well backfire.    Of course I wont dignify your silly personal attacks with a response. And you repeated your personal attack with your response. I'll be reporting you.   :Excellent.    Calling another editor a nazi, regardless of whether you think it is true, is completely unacceptable.  If you continue, you may be blocked for personal attacks.  Please find a more civil way to discuss your concerns about the article.      *Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.    :Stop being hyporcitic and stop spamming my talk page Thulean. I have enough with what Shell Kinney said.    Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.  By saying things like ``Nevertheless I will keep protecting the article against unilateral harassment by Thulean, who obviously is not interested in reaching any consensus but just imposing his opinion and (unspeakable) ideology by any means at reach``, you are still implying I'm a Nazi and that is a personal attack. Concentrate on debate, on the text, not me.    ==White People==  Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to White people, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.   You may delete uncited or incorrectly cited meterial. But deleting whole cited sections (population section) is considered vandalism.    :I am not vandalizing but editing in agreement with consensus. You are POV-pushing it and acting unilaterally.  :I'm not worried about your threats. You can't block me: you would have to initiate an investigation, what I will be glad to be involved in such process as it might help to solve the conflicts the disputed article is involved in. (And I guess it will be you who may be disciplined instead).  :Stop spamming my user page and keep the discussion civil and in its proper place: the corresponding article's talk page. Thanks.    I think you have to report warnings to users talk page. Anyway, I reported you.    :Thanks. It's the first time in 2 years that anybody reports me. I have mixed feelings about it but I feel that I have acted in full accordance with Wikipedia's spirit. So I have no fear.     Your RFI seems to have been resolved before I found out about it. I tend to agree with you, it was little more than a time wasting excersise. It also beggs the question, is it an attack to infer someone's political sympathies, surely it's only an attack when it's meant to be offensive or insulting? I'm a bit concerned generally, Wikipedia seems to be overrun with racists at the moment, I don't know if it is a concerted effort, or if it's just that they've discovered it as a way to promote their vile ideology, but still there seems to be a lot of racist/racialist opinion creeping onto quite a lot of pages at the moment. Oh well, all we do is follow proper wiki procedures, they should be robust enough to stop neo-fascist ideology from being promoted. I wondered what you might think of this paper Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease, it's cited in the Race and multilocus allele clusters. Personally I think this sort of paper is very dangerous, if scientists want to define human populations in this way I think they should avoid the loaded word race, and emphasis the small nature of geographic variability. The other worying thing is that this sort of paper is being published in such a high impact journal. As a geneticist and scientist myself these people make us all look very bad.    :The RFI is still not fully settled. I've appealed the warn, so please pass by and comment anyhow. :If you are right that there's a lot of nazi content-attacks, this may be a major issue worth of discussing somewhere else. I'll look for appropiate spaces. What was of Wikipedians against Racism?.    :Regarding the paper: it's disputable. Some population clustering is a fact and it may be relevant to dealing with certain diseases (for instance Western Eurasians and specially Basques have high Rh disease probability, while East Asians and Native Americans don't - Africans are intermediate), the re are other papers that dispute this (on the grounds that race classification, as arbitrary as it is, provides no valid medical info and that many of these ``racial diseases`` actually overflow any racial/ethnic border in most cases) and is a subject of current debate.  :The article doesn't seem to have been attacked by ``white nationalists`` who would probably consider it ``too pro-Caucasoid`` and therefore against their pseudo-Europeist approach to ``white race``.  `