User talk:Efekadu
Efekadu, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Efekadu! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC) |
Welcome Efekadu!
I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| To help get you started, you may find these useful: | When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
Amhara People/language section include page numbers
[edit]Include page numbers when providing a source, it helps other editors to verify. [[1]] Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Noting here (belatedly) that page numbers were added for the citation in question. Thanks again for the advice! Efekadu (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Afroasiatic homeland in various articles
[edit]Hi Efekadu! I have seen that you have brushed up Afroasiatic homeland, and also the related summary sections in Afroasiatic languages and Proto-Afroasiatic language. All of these articles have seen major disruption by at least two blocked sockmasters shortly before you have made your edits. The earlier disruptive edits introduced several factual errors and miscitations, so I want to restore the pre-sock versions, especially in Afroasiatic languages and Proto-Afroasiatic language (Afroasiatic homeland is in parts a hopeless mess, have a look at my suggestion in the talk page). This would however temporarily also affect your recent helpful edits, which you then of course could restore, and probably also adjust the texts for WP:NPOV. Here are the stable versions before sock disruption:[2], [3] (NB I'm only talking about the "Urheimat" section). Note also that these sections are just summaries of the main article and should remain brief and concise. Is it fine for you to proceed this way? –Austronesier (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Austronesier! It is very regrettable that this article was targeted by bad actors. However, the previous versions do seem to give undue weight to the Levant origin hypothesis without much backing for that weight in the form of sources. There appears to be a bias against African perspectives on many wikipedia articles, which sadly fuels much of the bad faith edits we see as an overreaction. What are your thoughts on addressing the factual errors and misattributions and adding back content in support of the Levant hypothesis? Here's a suggested rework of the Omotic-ancestry/E-M215 piece:
- ...A 2018 genetic study by Daniel Shriner found that the ancient Natufian samples harbored a distinct ancestral component associated with Omotic-speaking groups in southwest Ethiopia. Notably, Roger Blench proposed southwest Ethiopia as the Afroasiatic homeland, citing the high internal diversification of that language branch. Additionally, Y-chromosome haplogroups E-M215 and E-M35 are quite common among Afroasiatic speakers. The linguistic group and carriers of this lineage have a high probability to have arisen and dispersed together from Northeast Africa.
- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1469-1809.2001.6510043.x
- https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/21062/OriginsAfroasiatic.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6062619/
- https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/30/R1/R37/6204791?login=false Efekadu (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a historical linguist, so personally I also lean towards the NE African hypothesis based on the traditional linguistic methods (homeland = area of greatest linguistic diversity). But personal opinions are not important, but rather what can be gleaned from the best sources in the most coherent and faithful manner. My problem with "fixing" the current version are statements like this:
It is argued that Proto-Afroasiatic-speakers developed a subsistence practice of intensive food collection and a subset of that population migrated northwards into modern day Egypt and the Levant during the late Paleolithic, merging with local populations of largely West-Eurasian ancestry, resulting in a population which would later give rise to the Natufian culture, which is frequently associated with early Afroasiatic-speaking or specifically Semitic-speaking communities
, followed by a citebomb. The sources listed after this sentence either actually argue for the opposite (e.g. "Hall (2005)" which is actually a paper by Colin Renfrew, or Diamond & Bellwood (2003)) or support only parts of it (e.g. Blench (2006), Hodgson et al. (2014)). This kind of concocted synthesized hodgepodge is diagnostic for the poor content that is persistently added one by those "bad actors", and is arguably hard to fix unless you erase it and start it from scratch. - I do not worry much about sources in the "Urheimat" sections in Afroasiatic languages and Proto-Afroasiatic language. As summaries, they should briefly reflect the key points of the main article Afroasiatic homeland without any "original" contribution. So all homework about good sourcing needs to go into the main article. The worst thing that we by all means should avoid is to have "Urheimat" sections that are WP:POV forks, giving an imbalanced perspective of the main article. –Austronesier (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Austronesier That's understandable. Do what you think is best and we will work on it. Thanks for checking in first. Efekadu (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I've seen they also have crossed your path already: Talk:Genetic_history_of_Africa. The discussion betrays all traits of numerous other similar encounters in various talk pages. Always assume good faith, but this does not apply to interactions with banned editors whose track record of abuse is sheer endless. –Austronesier (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Austronesier Yikes. To be honest, I figured as much. Thanks for the heads up! Efekadu (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I've seen they also have crossed your path already: Talk:Genetic_history_of_Africa. The discussion betrays all traits of numerous other similar encounters in various talk pages. Always assume good faith, but this does not apply to interactions with banned editors whose track record of abuse is sheer endless. –Austronesier (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Austronesier That's understandable. Do what you think is best and we will work on it. Thanks for checking in first. Efekadu (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a historical linguist, so personally I also lean towards the NE African hypothesis based on the traditional linguistic methods (homeland = area of greatest linguistic diversity). But personal opinions are not important, but rather what can be gleaned from the best sources in the most coherent and faithful manner. My problem with "fixing" the current version are statements like this:
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hello, Efekadu
Thank you for creating Kobo massacre.
User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:50, 9 July 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) 01:51, 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)