Thanks Jimbo -- you understand my view perfectly. I fully support the 3 revert rule in principle, what I question is only its mechanical, automatic application. I know that Dante was being fair when he blocked both me and Jalnet2. I guess that what I should have said is, it would have been just as fair not to have blocked either of us. I am, however, sorry that Tony Sidaway so capably manages to combine ignorance with arrogance. I say this in good faith: Tony, before putting in your two cents (not adjusted for inflation), please check out the history of the conflict. I have been working on the Race article for some time, and I can tell the difference between someone who knows what they are doing and someone who does not. Jalnet has for the past two weeks been pushing an agenda which, basically, involves highlighting the views of two psychologists in the introduction of the article. Why did I revert the word "some?" Because keeping it rendered the article inaccurate. I explained to Jalnet why it renders the sentence inaccurate. I also asked Jalnet to provide any counter-examples, and he couldn't, or wouldn't provide any. I know that at this point someone like Cheese Dreams will point to this as evidence that I am arrogant. But my insistence on deleting the word "some" is not based on any high opinion I have of myself. It is based on the fact that I have gone to the library and read a number of articles recently published in major peer-reviewed journals, and I have read books on the topic. When Jalnet2 insists on making uninformed claims, he is not insulting me -- he is insulting the hard work of scores of evolutionary scientists, and dishonoring the integrity of Wikipedia, which depends on editors doing some research. You also mention my deleting the Rische article reference. You neglect to mention three salient points. First, Jalnet2 put information from this study into a section on populations and clines. It simply did not fit into that section. There are other sections where this information would fit. By the way, Jalnet2's style of editing, although shared by many people at Wikipedia, is very bad style and I think we should all discourage it. His style is, whenever he sees a claim made he doesn't like, he puts in a counter-argument immediately following the claim. If everyone practiced this, we would not have articles, we would have Talmudic debate. Now, I love the Talmud, but I do not think it is a good model for an encyclopedia article. Yes, we must represent all views -- but not in the format of a "Crossfire" debate. The Race article has different sections for each major view. Jalnet2 is not interested in putting forward useful information; he is instead interested in disrupting the presentation of views he does not like. Second, Jalnet2 was using a press release as his source, which is not a very good source of information on something as complex as population genetics. Third, Rikurzhn had already put this information into the article, in the appropriate section, with a citation to the 2005 article from the American Journal of Human Genetics!! If Jalnet put the Risch citation back into the article, in the same place he put it yesterday, would I delete it again? You bet I would! I have a long enough record of compromising with many editors. But maybe my idea of compromise is different from yours. When I make a claim like "Everyone says ..." and another editor claims "No one says ..." my idea of a compromise is not to just change it to "Some say ..." and leave it at that. This notion of compromise is not going to help us produce quality encyclopedia articles. My idea of compromise is more like this: if an editor makes a different claim than I do, I provide my source and ask him or her to do the same. We discuss the nature of the two sources, and make sure that we are each interpreting them properly. Then we discuss how best to represent these views, however diverse, in the article. Now, I know a good deal of the literature on race, human evolution, and population genetics. And there are people working on the race article who know more than I do (like Rikurzhen). Rikurzhen and I have argued, but we have always been able to reach compromises that improve the article. When someone comes along and asserts claims that to my knowledge have no support whatsoever, and then refuses to provide adequate sources, and I am fairly confident about my research, I will delete what they have written. Tony, you can call me an edit-warrior all you like. But let me tell you: your success at Wikipedia depends largely on your understanding of our policies, your willingness to follow discussions on talk pages in order to get some context for your understanding of how the article came to reach its present state -- and, most important of all, your willingness to do some research and assert claims only when you know what you are talking about. Tough, but that's how it is. Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701