User talk:SamuelRoth79

{{If what this guy says is true and he really blocked me permanently because I said something out of anger towards another group, but it was directed at an editor, than that would really suck. Because I tried today to add a picture and I just wanted to know how to get the picture approved, I didn't realize I hurt the dudes feelings and it really wasn't even directed at him, but if this man truly wished to ban someone for making a mistake then I guess he will earn more the bad karma of picking on new people u have always liked Wikipedia, you can check that I have donated money before and I could really be of service too. And I have a lot to offer. I enjoin you to go to my Quora page if you wish to know the kind of person I am. It's filed the under one post. }}

Welcome!

Hello, SamuelRoth79!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 11:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Thank you for your contributions to Ancient Egyptian race controversy, but I reverse image searched the latest image you've tried to add to the article, and you don't actually own it despite you having marked that as the case on the file's page. Additionally, the image is from the same unpublished source mentioned by the IP editor on that article's talk page. I cannot stress this enough, your sources must be reliable, and unpublished sources are a massive red flag. Please engage in constructive conversation with other editors and self-revert any edits you have made because of the information on that unpublished source. Thank you, and please respond quickly. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im new at this. And Keita is Peet reviewed. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. The literal first sentence of the reliable sources policy states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". I highly recommend you step away from editing articles on fringe theories and spend some time working on better researched articles. Click on the link to see the definition of such. Also see the contentious topics policy so you know what to avoid, at least early on. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theories?? What are you talking about. Ancient Egypt being African and black ?? There is now evidence and here is the proof. "Peer reviewed" as a fellow LGBT you seem pretty racist SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He published it. Here is the lonk https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:2e52331b-14f4-4d00-bf80-85deb5b437a6 SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion Jean-Philippe Gourdine1,4, S.O.Y Keita2,4, Jean-Luc Gourdine3 and Alain Anselin4* 1Oregon Health & Science University, 2Smithsonian Institution, 3National Institute of Agricultural Research, France (Guadeloupe), 4Ankhou/Cahiers Caribéens d'Égyptologie (Guadeloupe, Martinique), *corresponding author: " SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://osf.io/ecwf3/download/?format=pdf SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come to the conclusion that I was LGBT? I am a supporter, but just because I'm a furry doesn't mean I'm not straight. Regardless, I am not representing any community with my edits, I am simply following Wikipedia policy.

I apologize if I came off as racist by calling the article's subject a "fringe theory". On Wikipedia, the term "fringe theory" is used in a broad sense to "describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." I am not questioning the African influence on Egypt's population genetics, it would be ridiculous to deny that there would be little to no genetic relation between the two due to their relative geographical proximity and Egypt's ease of access through its waterways.

The fringe theory in question is the challenging of mainstream history consensus, particularly that mentioned in the lede: "In more recent times, some writers continued to challenge the mainstream view, some focusing on questioning the race of specific notable individuals", amongst those being Tutankhamen. Because of this and , When you added an image describing the genetic analysis of various Egyptian haplogroups to the section about Tutankhamen, I instinctively applied a fringe theories approach to the topic, also because of the talk page's incoherent ramblings and the IP editor stating it was a "technically unpublished source".

If you have a better understanding of this than I do, or if you have your own point of view on the topic, I strongly encourage you to explain it. I don't want this to devolve into a "you versus me" situation. You seem to genuinely want to improve Wikipedia. So do I. Arguing is not a good use of our time. What is a good use of our time is coming to a conclusion via discussing with each other. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that image comes from a published article by Soy Keita and it shows the DNA of the 18th dynasty and Ramses III. I don't know how to get the image out of the article without messing with it. But I'm learning. So what do j need to have it put on that page? SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:SamuelRoth79 that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im not sure which one. But this argument has gone on long enough, an anthropologist SOY Keita took the same samples that DNA tribes used and he ran them in his laboratory and found the same results and he published them. Peer reviewed SamuelRoth79 (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling an editor racist. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 14:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Personal attacks, POV pushing of a fringe theory, and a general lack of competence are also factors in this block. When you wrote "Peer reviewed" as a fellow LGBT you seem pretty racist, that was an utterly unacceptable personal attack on another editor. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i said I was sorry and I didn't mean he was racist. I meant to say I deal with real academic racism all the time in my field. And I was upset that h wouldn't allow the photo, you cannot permanently ban someone from making a mistake. That is outright wrong SamuelRoth79 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is very personal for some people and it gets very heated all over the place. If you wish to see if I am good person or not I can give you my Quora and Facebook page info SamuelRoth79 (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the good thing about Wikipedia: there's a very big difference between a ban and a block. Blocks are measures put in place to prevent any further potential disruption from users. However, you can appeal these. "Indefinite" is not the same as "infinite". If you really want to improve Wikipedia, you can request to be unblocked, as the notice above says.

A ban is a whole other matter. Bans are only for those few users who refuse to change from damaging practices, or for those who pose a significant and sustained threat to Wikipedia's quality. You are not banned, you are blocked. If you really want to do good on Wikipedia, you can ask for a chance to prove it. You may get that chance, but you have to prove your competency.

Also, I really appreciate that you apologized for calling me a racist. I understand that you may see a lot of racism in your profession and why you reached the conclusion you did; it is a logical enough train of thought. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An evidence free accusation that a colleague, a fellow editor, is racist is utterly unacceptable. "Logical trains of thought" cannot be invoked to justify or rationalize policy violating personal attacks on other editors. This is a collaborative project, and aggressively pushing the fringe theory that ancient Egyptians have been definitively proven to have relatively recent sub-Saharan African origins based on spurious arguments that such theories are good for 21st century African-Americans is ludicrous. This is stuff for blogs, not for a neutrally written, well-referenced encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you put it that way... Good point. I just don't let these things stick in my mind. If someone genuinely regrets making a personal attack against me, I'm willing to give them some rope. If that same someone continues to be disruptive to Wikipedia, then they won't see any support from me when they're under fire. For me, I find my most valuable tool is a cool head. If they regret it, it'll show through their actions. If they don't, it'll show in the discussion archives, and in the worst case scenario, their block reason. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i really Wasn't upset with you when I said that. I had just gotten out of an argument with another person who was claiming they had blond and red hair. Which is ridiculous, no one even in modern Egypt has red hair. It's the mummification process SamuelRoth79 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you will get much sympathy for calling someone racist because of an argument you had with some other person. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

obviously I don't even know him, so it's not like I meant he is a white supremacist nazi. If someone called me racist I would just laugh it off. It was in a private conversation too. Not like other people can see. But to ban someone, which I thought was permanent, but it's not, for making a mistake? I am a good person and I fight for justice. You only have to look at my Quora page to see if I'm a good person or not. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a private conversation on wiki. You're free to do what you want when someone calls you a racist, but if someone seriously called you a racist on wiki, it's likely that editor will be blocked too because personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia and being called a racist is an extremely serious personal attack. We don't want editor trivialising such disgusting personal attacks so no editor should think they're able to do so just because the targeted editor doesn't care. Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand,it was wrong and I apologized, I was upset with someone else and I took it out on Sirocco SamuelRoth79 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry sir. I tried to speak to you on Quora Mr Cullen but you haven't participated for 4 years. So. But to say Egypt didn't and wasn't African (sub Saharan is modern term that has no meaning in anthropology) is sheer European bias and there is much evidence that they were related far more to the Nubians in the south than West Asians to to the East. There is a desert that seperated them. But not from inner Africa. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you do realize that Wikipedia is the information go to for anything, that means it's important, and I seriously hope as the older generation goes away, and retires. More young people equipped with better quality truth get in charge of things. Because right now it appears that the information is purposefully hidden. I understand there are the modern Egyptians to think about, and they matter too, but to Modern Egypt, not to Ancient. And any serious Egyptologist studies Egypt in an African context and not "near Eastern" one which is also a completely new term. I. Early Egyptology you always read "a north eastern African civilization". Never "a Middle Eastern" civilization. I pray to AuZerRa that things change for the better. Because as things are right now. We have a crisis. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do I need to learn how to code to contribute to Wikipedia? I can learn it. I'm fast with languages and where could I be useful? SamuelRoth79 (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore it, @SamuelRoth79. You’ll be unblocked in about few months. 2600:1004:B0B6:C892:452F:8ABE:5102:654F (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1004:B0B6:C892:452F:8ABE:5102:654F not exactly true. Samuel will be unblocked if they are able to convince the admins that they properly understand Wikipedia's policies and will contribute positively. It may be a few months before they get unblocked, or it may be a few weeks. It depends. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]