User talk:Aergas

Welcome!

Hello, Aergas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

I reverted your change to the Mexico infobox, since the source you used was considerably less detailed than the one you replaced. In addition, for describing an ethnic group within Mexico, "Mexican" is probably the wrong term. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: Hi, regarding the section of ethnic groups in the article of Mexico, on wikipedia official data is the one that must be favoured over third party sources that certainly haven't realised extensive, person-per-person studies and surveys in the country and whose estimations are based on outdated old data. Data from official census will always be more accurate, I started a discussion in the Village Pump section of wikipedia and that was the result [8]. Check this out. Aergas (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Official sources are surely preferred over other sources, when and only when they offer comparable detail. The source you provided offered essentially no detail - it was a straight poll "do you think you are indigenous", broken down by state and gender. It doesn't offer the information of ethnic statistics provided by Britannica - and thus cannot replace them. The fact that a government says something vaguely related doesn't mean that such statement replaces all other statements. It only means that if two sources offer the same information, the government source should generally take precedence. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can an estimation that is likely to be based on nothing have more sustent than a real census? Britanica didn't conducted a national house-by-house census, what it says has no real sustent, it is estimations at best or very old data or both things, it can't have more credibility than a census done by the country itself that visted every person living there, i don't think that the source you are favouring have done that. And to have the major ethnic group identified with the denomyn of the country is used in other countries, like Spain or Germany. Aergas (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precision isn't the issue here, it's detail. The Mexican poll you quote does not offer ethnic groupings - it's a self-identification of *ONE* cultural group (not ethnic, which is the box you replaced), entirely ignoring everything else. As for the name, by saying that some percentage are "Mexican", you are claiming that those of indigenous origin are not Mexican. That's absurd. If you want to further discuss this with a wider audience, use the Talk:Mexico page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The groups you include are not ethnic subgroupings but racial ones, and they are not used in Mexico a.nd there is no reliable statistical data about them because the Mexican statistical institute does not count them. We have discussed many times before whether to include American style racial information and decided against it because it is not a relevant category. Any source that gives data about how many "white people" are in Mexico is based on speculaiton not on accurate census data, and it also misrepresents the categories that actually exist in Mexico.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor wants to include this census data somewhere, I have no objection. But it's not ethnic data, and he should not be replacing the ethnic data box. You can argue that the ethnic data box is meaningless in Mexico, I'd argue that it's meaningful worldwide. The items he has now is that 84% of the population is "Mexican". That's not an ethnic classification. The 14.86% "Amerindian Mexican" is not accurate - what the census gives is a self-reported "they consider themselves indigenous" which is meaningless. And the 0.85% "other" is wrong - it's people who didn't answer the question, not that they are some other ethnicity. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor Maunus mentioned above, any racial data is not accurate, and unnoficial and should not be displayed in a site like Wikipedia, much less in the main infobox. how detailed it can be is out of this discussion, since is mere speculation regardless. Aergas (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The racial data you insert from the Lizcano study are also not valid, it is guesswork based on a biological definition of "ethnicity" that noone else uses. Also the way you phrase it misrepresent the study and is hugely outof style for an encyclopedia "huge numbers". Furthermore it purveys the erroneous notion that there is anysuch thing as "biologically white" which every one agrees that there isnt - and which Lizcano does not claim that there is. A single study published in a mionor Spanish language journal is not a highly reliable source, especially not when it contradicts all other literature on the topic. Also your edit in fact contradicts the rest of the sentence that describes the problems with ethnic classification and the terms "mestizo", "white" and "indigenous" as demographic categories. So in short it simply cant be included due to multiple problems.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Caucasian-specific allele..."

A simple question regarding this edit: [1]. Have you read the entire paper you cite, or just the abstract? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the entire paper, why? Aergas (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because unless I'm misreading the abstract (I've not read the paper myself yet), it seems to be saying that only 3.5-15.4% of the sample they classified as 'Caucasian' carried the heterozygote allele - which makes a statement that "Mexicans have been found to have" the allele rather misleading. Is the abstract wrong? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That number refers to the heterozygocity found in the caucasian classified populations (Germans, Turks and Mexicans), they presented it, but In neither of the populations is present in a majoritarily percentage. That oppening phrase is not entirely misleading in my opinion, but if you or someone else want to remove it as long as the data refering that mexicans were classified as caucasians and registered the allele like the other caucasians did i don't mind. Aergas (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I misunderstanding, or are you suggesting that the fact that this paper referred to a sample of Mexicans as 'Caucasian' is somehow of particular significance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No more no less than the study itself. Aergas (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the study has no particular relevance to Mexicans at all, except in as much as it tells us what we already know - that population genetics indicates a majority 'European'/'Caucasian' ancestry. Why do we need to cite a paper looking at a single allele when we already have data on the broader genetic makeup of the population? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I included it because is a different take on genetics rather than more of the same with the same procedures and because it's rather rare, variety and richness of information. Aergas (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on on the article talk page - I think we would be better off discussing this there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Alon12 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mexicans of European descent. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
Stop edit-warring and discuss on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Alon12 (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack? Aergas (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Edit_Warring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexicans_of_European_descent

"you are greatly misinterpreting sources that aren't ambiguous at all. It's like you were arguing out of boredoom" "if you read the talk page his last arguments are close to non-sense. " "So instead of replying with walls of unsourced text and an excess of technisisms with the intention of overwhelm other editors just prove your claims with direct sources, I was asked to do that and I just did, if you can't do it please stop clogging discussions repeating the same things over and over" "Do you have a grasp of grammar,", etc. and many more.

Alon12 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to read the entries for personal attacks on Wikipedia, and no, this sentence is not a personal attack. Aergas (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Your recent editing history at Mexicans of European descent shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Alon12 (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alon12 (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment at WP:AN3

Please see my suggestion that both of you be blocked unless you accept a voluntary ban from this topic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to protect the article to prevent any possible edit warring for one week or the time that is necessary to resolve the discussion. I don't think that more extreme measures are necessary, the discussion in the talk page for Mexicans of European descent finally seems to be going somewhere and the editor in question is starting to understand [2]. Aergas (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Mexicans of European descent. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Per this decision at WP:AN3. You have engaged in long-term edit warring and failed to make effective use of dispute resolution. In my closure I accepted some advice from User:Robert McClenon. He is familiar with the dispute since he was the volunteer who handled the DRN case. Any admin can lift this block if you will agree to a voluntary ban from the topic of Mexicans of European descent on all pages of Wikipedia, including talk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aergas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason for the blocking was stated to be "edit warring" but if anyone look at the history of the article [3] or check my edits on it two things are seen: that I haven't been close to violate any guideline concerning reverts (in fact, when the user Alon12 filled the report accusing me of edit warring in the respective noticeboard I have reverted only two times, in a gap of ten hours) and that a big part of my edits since this issue started have been destined to incorporate the material that has been proposed in the talk page, the article, as it was when this issue started [4] and as it is now [5] have notable differences, the discussion on this affair has been rough and exhaustive, but I've tried my best to sort this out and I've been the only party on this discussion that has been open to discuss changes and has performed said changes after reaching agreements, my goal is to acheive a version of the article on which all views are equally represented, I think it's unfair that I am accused of "not listening" when I'm the only party that has been opened to discussion and has accepted and performed requested changes. The discussion, slowly, has been progressing and looks like is about to end, that's why I don't understand that this kind of actions are taken now. I would like to be unblocked to take part of the final steps, because my input is still required in a pair of places to give a complete scope of the actual situation. I've never had any problem with listening other editors or administrators, my edit history shows that and if it seemed like that lately, I would have liked to have an editor or an administrator to let me know instead of taking this measures out of the blue, the only person that has made comments on my talk page regarding this issue has been Alon12 (who is blocked right now), but it were notices about him opening cases in multiple noticeboards. Additionally there is considerable evidence of sockpuppetry involved on this affair, I filled a case for a sockpuppet investigation (it can be seen here [6]), but hasn't received attention by an administrator or a clerk yet, the only user that has commented on it has been the accused one: Jytdog, but he is obviously going to defend himself. The similarities on edit style and schedule tendencies as well as behavorial evidence (like the editor in question completely changing his attitude and aproach towards the discussion after being accused) speak by themselves. Aergas (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been informed of what you can do to get unblocked immediately. In the absence of that, your long-term edit warring is clear from the article's history; blocking you has prevented that from continuing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

January 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk: Mexicans of European descent. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The allegation that User:Alon12 and User:Jytdog are sockpuppets is so absurd that it does raise competency issues. The allegation of sockpuppetry is a serious personal attack. User:Jytdog has been around a long time. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert McClenon. He actually opened a case on me at SPI - I just stumbled across it today. It's here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jytdog. (He followed my suggestion on the Talk page at least - better he did that, than continuing attacking me on the Talk page, I suppose) Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm completely sure that jytdog is the sockpuppeter, however one can be certain that Alon12 is a sockpuppet, beause despite having done only 12 article edits and being around for only a month he has edit and argumentative skills that require years to develop (whether is of jytdog or someone else is something that would require deep investigation), I tried to open a case a week before the one I made, the problem is that when I went to the page of sockpuppet investigations the template required to add at least two editors (I don't know if it would have worked with only adding one editor to the report) so I had no other choice than to hold Alon12 until someone who could be suspected of being another sockpuppet or the sockpuppeter itself appeared, and you have to admit there is some similarities, like the schedule that both editors use and the editing style. The template at SPI asked aswell for linking the oldest account as the main one, I knew that it would be hard to make other editors to pay the required attention to the case having a name as known as jytdog in the title of the case, but I didn't know if it would have worked having a case only for Alon12. Going back to the article I notice that other editors have begun to edit the article and nobody is discussing at all. I think that the best way to settle this would be to remove the paragraph that talks about racial purity altogether (all is in only one paragraph) and be done with this, because is the reason this started and we couldn't reach an agreement after all this discussion, that's my suggestion to end this. I've always been open to listen to others and I'm certain that if I was to discuss the issues of the article with other editors involved we would reach agreements fast. The discussions on which I've been involved before this one have come out smoothly, what is different on this particular discussion is that Alon12 continues to argue in non-stop, often moves the goalpost and makes considerably big responeses, he have done this in the talkpage for the article on dispute and on various noticeboards despite that I and other editors have told him that he is not supposed to keep arguing, that he has to wait until third editors appear but he just continues. I think he acts this way because as EdJohnston pointed out, he is likely a single-purpose account and really has nothing to lose by dragging the discussion as much as he have done or by drowning the discussion and will that other editors might have to participe on this with walls of text, he even did this on his own talk page the other week. Aergas (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alon12 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Alon12 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alon12 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]