User talk:HalfOfElement29

Please, no welcome message.

Haplogroup article

I don't know who you think you are, but you obviously don't have the knowledge necessary to be making edits to this sort of page on Wikipedia. It is already known that a particular Y-DNA haplogroup cannot be correlated with any particular mtDNA haplogroup on such a wide scale, because researchers have not yet identified sufficiently specific subclades. Take, for instance, the case of Y-DNA Haplogroup C: one subclade of Haplogroup C, namely Haplogroup C3, is the modal Y-chromosome haplogroup among Mongols; the overwhelming majority of mtDNA sequences among the Mongols belong to subclades of Haplogroup M. Another subclade of Haplogroup C, namely Haplogroup C4, is the modal Y-chromosome haplogroup among indigenous Australians. However, close to 100% of indigenous Australian mtDNA haplotypes belong to various Australian-specific subclades of Haplogroup N. So, in the case of the Mongols, Y-DNA Haplogroup C is correlated strongly with mtDNA Haplogroup M, but in the case of the Australian aborigines, Y-DNA Haplogroup C is correlated even more strongly with mtDNA Haplogroup N. We cannot draw unfounded associations between particular Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups at the present level of phylogenetic resolution. I would bring up the case of Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b1c as a case in point: it has recently been discovered that a great percentage of the Haplogroup R1b1c Y-chromosomes found among the Basque people belong to either of two primarily Basque-specific subclades, R1b1c4 or R1b1c6. The majority of R1b1c Y-chromosomes found among other modern Western European populations are much more closely related to Haplogroup R1b1c9 Y-chromosomes that appear to derive from the ancestral population of the German people or to Haplogroup R1b1c7 Y-chromosomes that are common among the Irish people and Scottish people. The crux of the matter is that every subclade has its own history. You need to respect this fact and defer composition of a table of associations between various Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups to a future time when the human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA phylogeny has been determined to a sufficient degree of resolution. Ebizur 05:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could not tell, I am already well aware of the difficulties in matching y-haplogroups and mt-haplogroups. That is why the text that I added to the article clearly states the overlaps are only rough. Of course precise overlaps are not known, and only rough overlaps are known, but knowledge is knowledge. Therefore, the information should be included, provided that it is made clear that the overlaps are only rough. HalfOfElement29 06:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to make it even more clear that the overlaps are extremely rough, and often even completely opposite and contradictory, as in the aforementioned case of the Mongols and the Australian aborigines. Also, you must stop drawing associations that are factually incorrect at any level of resolution, such as associating mtDNA Haplogroup Q with Y-DNA Haplogroup NO. Ebizur 06:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already re-added the information, in which I deleted mt-haplogroup Q, and changed 'Overlaps' to 'Rough overlaps'. HalfOfElement29 06:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to User talk:Dbachmann

As you've surmised, I do have dab's page on my watchlist; and I do think it's uncivil to say that I'm a liar. If that's not what you meant by this post, then I'm very sorry for misunderstanding you; but you do seem to be accusing me of deleting material under false pretences, and I find that accusation a bit rude--especially since you were posting it on someone else's talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is uncivil of you to falsely state that I have called you a 'liar' (obviously a personal characterization), which I have clearly not done. Lying is a violation of policy (read Wikipedia:Civility). Therefore, to state that someone has lied is not at all uncivil, unless it is itself a lie. HalfOfElement29 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you are saying that I have lied. Obviously, I don't think I have. Why are you accusing me of lying? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated that at User_talk:Dbachmann, which I assume you have read. HalfOfElement29 04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

addendum: "Obviously, I don't think I have." No, it's "Obviously, I don't say that I have." HalfOfElement29 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can clarify, then, because I didn't understand what you were referring to. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you are pretending not to, for the sake of your reputation. In either case, this discussion is too trivial to be a worthwhile expenditure of time. HalfOfElement29 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

block

You have been blocked as a puppet of User:GoodCop. Bucketsofg 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]