User talk:Afv2006

External link considered as spam

Hello. As i can see you have removed the link to in-west-indies.com I do not understand the reason as the website has lots of information to offer to the surfers : Geography | history | Culture | sites to see | music and so much more.... We participated in the article by giving information about guadeloupe. Do you only accept institutional websites ? If yes i understand your decision (still being considered a spammer is a bit harsh) If not... Have you looked at what the site has to offer ?

Cordially, Arnaud —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.236.30.213 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi again. I did not put the article in the only hope to get a link for the Website...If it were the case i would simply remove the information i have decided to leave here.

I understand your decision about spam etc... and i will not try to make you change your decision if you really think this was a spammy link,Howeverer have you really looked at what the website has to offer (freely of course) to the internet user ? Once again i do not want you to change your plans but i think that removing all external links which are not related to an institutional website may reduce wikipedia's attributes. Some subjects are not covered by instituional websites or not as deep as let's say a fan of birds. I think the birds fan would be more interesting in his domain than the website of the prefecture. Anyways, we wish you a good development, we will continue to provide information on this website, and won t insert links any longer if that s what you wish (or what is the rule).

Cordially, Arnaud —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.236.30.213 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia spam consists of external links mainly intended to promote a website. Wikipedia spam also consists of external links to websites which primarily exist to sell goods or services. For that reason, official sites are preferred. For more information, see: Links normally to be avoided and Conflict of interest. Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Afv2006 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Masquerade ceremony

Re your addition to 'Masquerade (disambiguation)', I was in the process of starting a stub for 'masquerade ceremony' to describe the overall features of masked rites and dances and to list masked ceremonies, as distinct from the European 'Masquerade ball', to have a link from the Masquerade disambiguation page. Your examples of the Nigerian and Caribbean masquerades seemed more at home with the Masquerade ceremony page so I've moved them there -- I hope that's ok with you. Apologies if not. Regards, Rexparry sydney 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename request for Sint Maarten

I've started a rename process for that "Saint Martin (Netherlands)" abomination. You should head over to the talk page and vote. Kww 11:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

In Shriver's paper you need to look at figure 2b. This figure shows that 70% of European Americans have 90-100% European ancestry, table 2 shows that European Americans have an average 96.1% European ancestry and a 3.2% Native American ancestry with an average 0.7% African ancestry. Clearly those European Americans who have significant amounts of non-European ancestry mostly have Native American ancestry, but also it is clear that less than 70% of EA have 100% European ancestry because this 70% figure includes people with only 90% European ancestry. Unfortunately the Shriver paper only includes AA and AC people in their graph depicting the proportion of African ancestry (fig 2a) and only EA in their graph showing proportions of European ancestry (2b), which means that a lot of interesting data are not shown, clearly more info about Native American ancestry would help to complete the picture. The claims that 30% of EA have some detectable African ancestry (at a mean of 2.3%), and that 5.5% of African Americans have no detectable African ancestry are made by Frank W. Sweet in his book Legal History of the Colour Line,[1] so we should correctly cite this, just as you say. I assume there is no reason why this cannot be considered a reliable source? I did try to find the source he cites but was unable to find it online at all, the only reference to it I could find was to Sweet's book and Wikipedia.[2] Still Frank W. Sweet is an academic so I don't see any reason to consider him unreliable. I just found that he has a wiki account User:FrankWSweet. I'm all for getting our citations right and working to remove incorrect assertions. I haven't read this paper for a long time and was not actually responsible for including this info into the article, I just noticed some trolling by a specific user and somehow got caught up in an edit war. I'm sorry I was rude yesterday, I was trying to deal with a disruptive editor and was distracted and a bit annoyed. I agree with you entirely, we need to cite our sources accurately and honestly, I was acting in good faith yesterday, but on reviewing Shriver's paper it is clear that many of the claims are from other sources, so we should cite those sources. Sorry again. All the best. Alun 07:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of your reasoning. I have no strong opinion about the inclusion of this info in this article one way or another. I didn't originally include this info in the article, I just happened along a couple of days ago. I'm not sure about it's relevance to the African diaspora article, I think there are good arguments both for and against, but is it important to include it in the article? I don't think so. One point I would make is that I'm not sure an article about the African diaspora is necessarily the same as an article about African Americans looking for their African origin, have you thought about starting a specific article about the African origins of African Americans? There must be plenty of material to work with for this to make a good article all on it's own, from Alex Haley's work through to modern DNA testing. Just a thought. Regarding the article, the only concern I had, which is what led to the regrettable edit war, was the claim by Savignac that Shriver's work and data were somehow flawed or biased, a claim that he could not back up. My problem was not necessarily with the validity of including the data per se, but with his claims as to why the data should not be used, which appears to hinge on some sort of personal affront from the claim that he personally, as an European American, might just have some African ancestry. I suspect this user of being a sockpuppet of User:Fourdee due to his very similar style of arguing on talk pages and his very strange attitude towards "race". All the best. Alun 06:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I've been here since 2003 at least as an editor. I would be happy to have African ancestry, which I'm pretty sure is there, due to a number of factos. I am a secondary Afrophile to my European studies, but I do not take kindly to racist agitation, whether it means segregation or miscegenation. I wouldn't mind marrying an African woman if I wasn't already married to a European woman. I just don't want to deal with that kind of racist pressure. Grow up and stop assuming you know everything about everybody. Savignac 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)