User talk:Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B.
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
BC vs BCE
[edit]Thank you for your edits but I must bring your attention to Wikipedia:Manual of Style retaining existing styles. If the article uses BC, you must stick with BC. And of course if it uses BCE, stick with BCE. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Bmac genetics
[edit]The new 2022 paper on Tajiks doesn’t say anyone is direct descendant of androvono, it actually says some yaninobi are 57 percent androvono and 43 percent bmac, while other Tajiks have east Asia dna as well, Finland is 80 percent sintashta, northeast Europe is closer to steppe mlba, the paper straight up says steppe people are on a Cline from EUROPEAN to EAST ASIAN not central or South Asia, and it also specifically says western steppe and even some central steppe using Androvono as the example, cluster on the bottom of the Europeans Cline, I don’t understand Tajiks obsession with claiming steppe mlba, you conveniently missed the Uzbek Iron Age 2021 study on sogdia which is basically Iron Age bmac, it clearly shows Europeans are closer to Uzbek Iron Age even then Tajiks and Uzbeks even look at supplement files Yogibear1133 (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm afraid you are wrong at History of ancient Israel and Judah in reverting the edit i changed ~ apart from anything else, by virtue of WP:BRD, it would have been best to Discuss the edit after you had been Bold at first then i had Reverted you. Putting that to one side, your edit is incorrect because "would have" is not right in this context: Using that verb structure implies that something did not happen, whereas the statement in the article is that it did ~ according to the bible, the source and subject for that sentence. I agree, if that sentence were talking about what the actual archaeological record shows, "would have" would have been correct; but it's not, so the phrase is incorrect. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but simply trying to explain clearly why those words are not the best, and why i urge you to use the talk page rather than putting them back. If i am not completely clear, please ask, as i am really aiming for the best for the project. I'll point out, for example, that i didn't query any of the other changes you made! Happy days ~ LindsayHello 18:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @LindsayH: I tried to be the most neutral as possible in the sentence, and I applied the academic criteria that this issue is not resolved. The conditional "would" does not imply necessarily it did not happen, it actually refers to a possibility not resolved, you do not have to feel it as a rejection. On the other hand, the full phrase says: "According to the Hebrew Bible, a United Israelite Monarchy existed as early as the 11th century BCE under the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon; the country later would have split into two separate kingdoms: Israel (containing the cities of Shechem and Samaria) in the north and Judah (containing Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple) in the south." I see you understand that the full phrase implies the comcept found in the Bible. I see it in a different way: the idea in the Bible ends in the mark (;) after that it comes the current academic consensus that the split is a possibility, but not proven yet. You should have taken into account that articles in Wikipedia are not mere citations of primary sources, many times editors of Wikipedia ask the contributors to quote secondary sources (papers, books, journals). The concept after the mark (;) is the current academic view, the Bible is a primary source, it is not an academic book.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
October 2024
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Greek Dark Ages, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See WP:LQ. Remsense ‥ 论 18:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I used the ellipsis guide from Oxford that establishes "obscure." is the correct way to write. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)