User talk:Skllagyook/Archive 1

Archive 1

Skllagyook, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Skllagyook! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wondering if you agree with my comments

here? Doug Weller talk 19:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I think so; if the proposed edit does not have an academic source (or other Wikipedia-acceptable source), it should not be included. On the other hand, if the source (or sources) given by the commentator is/are acceptable ones according to Wikipedia's rules (at least one seemed to be academic, the Zahi Hawass et al. paper cited last), then perhaps the presence of E1b1a in a few (or two, or however many it was found in) ancient specimens could very be briefly mentioned (perhaps in section the DNA history of Egypt article discussing "Ancient DNA", in which haplogroups are mentioned/discussed). However, regarding the commenter's claim that E1b1a was much more common in ancient than modern Egypt, this does not seem to be supported/is not at all clear (as far as we know), since E1b1a seems to have been (so far) only found in two (or a few) of the Ancient Egyptian remains, possibly belonging to the same family — from what I can tell, it has only so far been found in Ramesses III and in a mummy known as "Unknown man E" — (thus E1b1a could have been rare in Ancient Egypt as well). And, according to the DNA history of Egypt article, E1b1a is also present at low rates in modern Egyptians (And according to the DNA history of Egypt article, and its sources, some other known Ancient Egyptian remains carried y haplogroups E1b1b and J, which are still common in modern Egyptians.). Skllagyook (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ashkenazi Jews, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lebanese and Cypriot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Moxy 🍁 23:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Article of Haplogroup D

Hi. I requested move on Talk:Haplogroup D-M174#Requested move, but which do you think is better, moving Haplogroup D-M174 to Haplogroup D-CTS3946 or creating a new Haplogroup D-CTS3946 article? Please tell me for reference.--ABCEdit (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure at present, but I will consider the question and I will reply to you soon (likely sometime later today in not very long) with my opinion. Skllagyook (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

thank you 141.126.210.103 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@ABCEdit: I'm fairly new to this kind of thing and not very familiar with the procedures (and rules and requirements) involved in creating and moving pages, but in my tentative opinion (for now) it seems that it might be better to create a new haplogroup D-CTS3946 (basal D) page and to keep the D-M174 (D1) page that exists (perhaps with some slight modifications). Since the D-M174 page already exists with a lot of information about D-M174 (specific to D-M174), it might be best to keep it as a D-M174 page. I imagine that the new D-CTS3946 page would be linked from/to both the DE page (in the infobox and elsewhere, mentioned as a descendent of DE), and from the D-M174 page (mentioned as the ancestor of D-M174), as is generally the case with haplogroup pages to show how they are connected/related to other related haplogroups (in other words, the D-CTS3946 page would be "in-between" the DE page and the D-M147 page, if I understand correctly). The new D-CTS3946 page would also include some of the new information on D2 (and D-CTS3946) derived from the new research (from Haber et al. and the Roberta Estes source) that is currently on the D-M174 page. It also might be a good idea to make a page on the newly-discovered haplogroup D0 (D2), (which is, as you know, a descendant of D-CTS3946 and a sibling of D-M174). The D0/D2 page (if it is created) can also include the new research (from the Haber et al. study and the Roberta Estes source). But this opinion is somewhat tentative and I will do some more research into the rules and processes of creating and moving Wikipedia pages (and perhaps other relevant issues), and get back to you if I find some important relevant information and/or if my opinion changes on the matter. Skllagyook (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I'm neutral about moving Haplogroup D-M174 to Haplogroup D-CTS3946 or not, so I will work in the direction to create Haplogroup D-CTS3946.--ABCEdit (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

subspecies of Homo sapains

Could you please put your thoughts (opposition) in related request: Talk:Denisovan#'Homo_sapiens_denisova'_subspecies_of_Homo_sapiens 99.90.196.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Date ranges

Hello Skllagyook. Thanks for your work on paleo articles. But regarding this and this edit, please bear in mind that date ranges are conventionally given as oldest to youngest. So with BCE, BP or ya dates, the larger number goes first (e.g. 70–50 kya not 50–70 kya). Thanks. – Joe (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Are you sure that is always the case? I wasn't sure whether there was a particular convention, as I had seen it both ways in academic papers. In the first paper linked below, for instance, the smaller numbers seem to be placed first (the abstract for example says: "50,000–100,000 years ago", "50,300–81,000 years ago", and "50,300–59,400 years ago") https://www.genetics.org/content/212/4/1421, and in this second paper (at least in some places) the smaller numbers of BC date ranges seem to go first as well (such as in the map in "Fig 5": e.g. "60-70 ka", "30-40 ka", "8-10 ka", etc.): :https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/29/3/915/1005941. However, this other paper does use the order you describe (oldest to youngest): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6401177/ Skllagyook (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you'll find the vast majority of papers do earliest to latest. The second one you link actually mixes the two formats (copy editors not paying attention maybe!) In any case it's the norm on Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, in the future I will stick to the earliest to latest format then. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! – Joe (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

if you do not understand and you would want

ask question. If i get time i would explain. You can try now. Welcome 99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this. Agricolae (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Skllagyook! You created a thread called How to use a certain template from the "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Kerma culture

Dear Skllagyook, I have seen your ongoing great edits on improving the article about Kerma culture and so I would like to point out to you a picture just uploaded on wikicommons by a photographer who went to Sudan recently, here of a pristine early Kerma culture tomb on display in the National Museum of Sudan. The tomb, excavated in Kerma, is dated to c. 2500-2400 BC and was originally classified by Reisner in 1916 as belonging to the Nubian C-group but it seems he was mistaken. I hope you will find this picture useful to illustrate funerary practises of the Kerma culture. I was personally struck by the horns surrouding it, an hallmark of late predynastic to early dynastic tombs in Egypt. Note, the same photographer promised to soon upload a photo of a scale model of the city of Kerma c. 2000 BC on display in the Museum of Sudan.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Genealogical references tend to be unreliable

hi Skllagyook. Regarding your recent edits to John Wayne: Such references tend to be unreliable, and there's general consensus not to use them. You'll note multiple such websites are listed at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and discussions specifically about famouskin.com and ethnicelebs.com are archived at WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: I was not aware of that (although, only two of the genealogical sources you removed were added by me). Thank you for letting me know, and noted. Skllagyook (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"(including those of populations from Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas)"

I changed this to Eurasians, Polynesians, and Native Americans because the vast majority of people recognize those terms more so than Oceania, and because we're not trying to list every non-Subsaharan African ethnicity. It looked like you were just trying to give arbitrary examples of various non-Subsaharan Africans around the world (like why didn't you mention North Africans?), but the lead is already massive, and we need to cut unnecessary verbiage, so we really shouldn't even be trying to list x,y,z non-Subsaharan African population   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I gave examples (a short list) of the three major inhabited non-African regions (Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas) rather than an arbitrary list of regions or ethnicities. One reason for adding the list was to illustrate that Neanderthal admixture is found in all non-African (or non-sub-Saharan African) populations, since there seems (as I wrote in an edit note) to be a not uncommon misconception that it is restricted to populations of European and Asian origin. To replace Oceania (a region that also includes Papua, and Australia as well as various island groups, and a diversity of human groups as well) with Polynesia (one very small, and not necessarily representative, part of Oceania/not at all equivalent to "Oceania") does not seem to me to be an improvement, and it does much less to counter the misconception that Neanderthal admixture is restricted to a small range of non-sub-Saharan populations (but seems possibly consistent with said misconception). I agree would be preferable to use a more widely recognized term if an equivalent one were available, but (I think you would likely agree that) it is best avoided to take up more space by listing the regions of Oceania (Australia, Papua, etc). Hopefully the fact that "Oceania" is linked will aid in recognition/understanding. Skllagyook (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying we shouldn't even explain non-Subsaharan African. If you're worried people won't know it means everyone not from Subsaharan Africa, we can wikilink it, but we don't need to list all the continents   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I'm not sure I understand. Is there a page for "non-sub-Saharan African" that can be wikilinked to? There does not seem to be one. It does not seem to me to be a significant problem to briefly list three major regions in the lede, nor does it take up very much space, and it seems to me a helpful detail. I prefer to keep it (I'm not sure I fully understand the objection, and I feel that the advantage outweighs the rather small amount it adds to the lede — I can try to make its wording more concise if that helps/if you prefer). Skllagyook (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You say "non-Subsaharan African"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: That does not seem like it would help very much in the respect I am referring to. It is generally understood (more or less) what sub-Saharan African means. My suggestion is that which populations (in a general broad continental sense) have Neanderthal admixture may need or benefit from a little extra detail or emphasis (rather than only mentioning the populations or region(s) that do/does not have it). Skllagyook (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You will achieve the same effect with "non-Subsaharan African" and "including those of populations from Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas)" if it is already generally understood what Subsaharan African means. We don't need to call out specific races or anything. The only thing you could achieve by listing specific ethnicities is accidentally implying exclusion of certain other ethnicities (like you've excluded North Africans for starters)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I see your point about not wanting to seem to be excluding certain groups (that would give a misleading impression). Perhaps alternately, North Africans could be added to the list ("Eurasia, Oceania, North Africa, and the Americas"). Or instead could there perhaps be a better place to put the list than the lede? I can try to find one and later propose it here or in the article's Talk page) Skllagyook (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

My point is it's entirely unnecessary to list various regions and continents, and the article is already enormous so we need to cut down verbiage where we can   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Cushitic People Dispute

I had been about to close the Cushitic people dispute, because erasing the notice of the dispute resolution is a rude way of declining to participate in dispute resolution, and dispute resolution is voluntary. However, the other editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. This means that you may edit reasonably and boldly. It is possible that the other editor will create more sockpuppets. If so, please report them at sockpuppet investigations. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Ok. Thank you for the message/notification. Skllagyook (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Why did you take out my addition to the Race and Intelligence Article?

Hi Skllagyook,

Why did you take out my addition to the Race and Intelligence introduction? Tesint (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tesint: I removed it because the uncertainty regarding environmental vs genetic influences was/is already summed up above. Also, it (such a decisive statement as you had added) was not really accurate/supported, since some experts have argued that the differences are likely entirely environmental (e.g. Nisbett, Flynn, Turkheimer, etc.) - while some others have argued otherwise (It's not known, as summarized above in the paragraph); thus your addition was somewhat non-neutral/POV (see: WP:NPOV and WP:POV) and unsupported by both the article (which the lede is supposed to summarize) and by sources (see: WP:OR/WP:NOR). I would agree with the comment of the editor Johnuniq who responded to you in the Talk page [[1]] Skllagyook (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European homeland

Some counting:

• diff revert #1 by you
• diff revert #1 by MojtabaShahmiri
• diff revert #2 by MS
• diff revert #2 by you
• diff revert #3 by you
• diff revert #3 by MS
• diff revert #4 by you

So, technically you broke WP:3RR; take care. But, let's clear that MS is engaging in WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, in concreto pushing his WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I think (or thought) the first edit/removal by me involved different material than the later ones (or may have involved the later material in addition to other material). If I did break the 3 revert rule (which looking over the diffs, it now seems that I likely did - I must have not paid adequate attention and lost track, and I may not have fully/adequately understood the 3-revert rule, which I will now again review). Is there now a risk of my being blocked or otherwise sanctioned in this instance? I should have been more careful and discussed/encourage discussion on the Talk page instead. I will do my best to avoid breaking this rule in the future. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you were totally right in correcting MS's edits. In case there may a report, I'll plead for your innocence! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: That is much appreciated. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peopling of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gujarati (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your efforts to improve articles on IE. The project needs more editors like you.

Puduḫepa 13:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: Thank you! Skllagyook (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Micro-editing of talk page posts

It is a bit of a problem. For one thing, if it's a user talk page they keep getting notifications. WP:REDACT tells you what to do if no one has replied to a talk page post, but as I said, there's still the notification thing and it can be a bit annoying. Dalhoa doesn't seem to have edited recently I see. I posted a warning on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I see. that would be annoying. I was not aware that a new notification was sent every time an edit was made to a comment on a user page. I will try to avoid that (frequent micro-editing) in the future. Regarding the Homo sapiens and Human pages, could I revert (or revise) the problematic edits made by Dalhoa, and, if they revert me again and refuse to discuss, would the thing to do then be to open another ANI case? Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell you how to edit, but if you get reverted, let me know. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Understood. Thank you for the help and responses. Skllagyook (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European homeland

@Puduḫepa: and @Joshua Jonathan: Also, I believe User:MojtabaShahmiri is starting to edit war and POV-push on the Indo-European homeland page again. But I may not have much time to check the sources and hope to avoid risking violating 3RR. I have revised their problematic edits but am afraid they may continue. Skllagyook (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Skllagyook, you are actually POV-pushing, Wang et al. don't acknowledge that "the latest DNA evidence supports an expansion of Indo-Europeans through the steppe", you are generalizing the latest ancient DNA results from South Asia to all Indo-Europeans. Either the word "the latest" should be removed or it should be mentioned that this evidence is just about South Asia. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@MojtabaShahmiri: I am not POV-pushing and I have explained several times in the edit notes that the source/quote (which is quoted right there on the page) also mentions steppe ancestry in Europe (not only South Asia), and also cites the dna evidence from Europe (as wellas South Asia) in support of the "scenario DNA results" (also there in the quote). The source also says "latest". Here is the quote again:

"latest ancient DNA results from South Asia suggest an LMBA spread via the steppe belt. Irrespective of the early branching pattern, the spread of some or all of the PIE branches would have been possible via the North Pontic/Caucasus region and from there, along with pastoralist expansions, to the heart of Europe. This scenario finds support from the well attested and widely documented ‘steppe ancestry’ in European populations and the postulate of increasingly patrilinear societies in the wake of these expansions." Skllagyook (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What about Iran, Armenia, Anatolia, Greece, Central Asia and other lands where Indo-Europeans lived? Does "the latest DNA evidence supports an expansion of Indo-Europeans through the steppe" in these lands too? Do Wang et al. acknowledge it?! --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@MojtabaShahmiri: As previously explained, the source explicitly says "some or all of the PIE branches", which, in the case of "all" would include those you listed (again, it's in the quote), all of which (with the possible exception of Anatolia, which is uncertain) received/have steppe admixture. For instance, in Greece, which is in Europe, the early Greek-speaking Mycenaeans were found to have a steppe component, while the non-Indo-European-speaking Minoans (who were otherwise genetically similar) did not. The IE branche(s) of Iran and Central Asia are closest to that/those of South Asia (Indic, Dardic, and Iranic comprising the "Indo-Iranian" branch" of IE) and share similar steppe (as well as other kinds of) admixture. Skllagyook (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You are again POV-pushing, as you read: Mycenaean_Greece#Genetic_studies Lazaridis et al. admit that they "cannot model Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and steppe populations [...] due to the fact that Mycenaeans have more Iran-related than EHG-related ancestry". Anyway about the latest DNA evidence what you say that Wang et al. acknowledge is a self-contradiction, so it should be changed. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@MojtabaShahmiri: Regarding Lazaridis, I am not sure that your citing and interpretation of him is correct and I would/will have to look into it. But that less relevant to this discussion since the issue at hand is Wang et al. (rather than Lazaridis). And as explained repeatedly, Wang does mention "latest DNA evidence" and speaks of "some of all of the PIE branches". Thus there is no need to change anthing regarding this; it is clearly in the source. I do not know what you mean by a "self contradiction", but adding one's personal opinions not in sources and editorializing is not permitted on Wikipedia. Skllagyook (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@MojtabaShahmiri: But also (by the way) Lazaridis et al. 2017 do in fact mention likely steppe ancestry in the Mycenaeans (that was not present in the Minoans).

From the abstract:

"We show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean, and most of the remainder from ancient populations like those of the Caucasus and Iran. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter-gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia, introduced via a proximal source related to either the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe or Armenia. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the early Neolithic ancestry."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/

from "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" by Lazaridis et al. 2017

Seemingly, the Mycenaeans cannot be modelled (only) as a mixture of Anatolian farmer and steppe because they (as well as the Minoans) also (in addition) had Iranian/Caucasus-like ancestry, not because they (i.e. the Mycenaeans) did not have steppe ancestry (their proportion of steppe ancestry was relatively small - smaller than the other aforementioned two components - but present). Skllagyook (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I've dicussed the Mycenaeans before too with MS; he clearly is unable to understand those sources. WP:COMPETENCE is required... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Other than me, it seems other ones are also unable to understand your "steppe dogma" about the Mycenaeans : Talk:Mycenaean_Greece#"Steppe_dogma", including the mainstream Mycenologists! Please stop POV-pushing. Wang et al. clearly talk about genetic evidences which show "a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus", not the steppe, it is meaningless to say in the same work they acknowledge the opposite! --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Mal'ta–Buret' culture

Hi Skllagyook. Could you please have a look at this edit summary[2]. Haven't checked the source they added yet, but based on their edit summary, i would say that it is most probably an OR or a SYNTH case. I do not want to violate 3RR due to the stubborn editor who has obvious WP:CIR problem (see their earlier WP:HIJACKs), thus it would be nice if you check their edits. I'd also like to ping @Doug Weller:. Cheers, Puduḫepa 18:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: I'm afraid I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll try to check them out when I can (likely some time today). Skllagyook (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Puduḫepa 18:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned but no time right now to check the source. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and Skllagyook: will read the pdf thoroughly and fix the issues about it (likely tomorrow due to 3RR). I will continue to assume good faith for now. Thank you both anyway. Puduḫepa 20:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: fyi, Skllagyook pointed out the problems about the sources and the content in their edit summaries and fixed a good part of them as he/she did copious times on other WP articles. Skllagyook, you are a gem. Puduḫepa 13:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: Thank you so much! Skllagyook (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: as much as this subject interests me, I'm afraid I've been slammed this week with real life stuff. Your work on this is much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

PIE migrations, homeland, etc.

@Joshua Jonathan and Skllagyook: I think topics re PIE migrations and PIE urheimat need a major cleanup/rewriting. Edit-creep due to the additions by blocked ip socks and tendentious SPAs, unnecessary and UNDUE emphasis on hopelessly speculative "pre-proto-IE", "proto-proto IE", "proto-proto-proto IE" (it's pointless because if we dig up more, we all from Africa), quotefarms, not notable and extremely minority views (Sergent, etc.), incoherency, repeating contents,...you name it. Let's create a draft page on the sandbox and try to write a good article. By the way, we have new pages regarding the topic now, such as Western Steppe Herders and Eastern Hunter Gatherers. Some of the info from those new pages could also be useful. Puduḫepa 22:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Using info from those pages may result in even more repetitions. I'd think that the best way to improve thos epages is by incremential improvements. That is: just edit those pages, step by step. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The pages have additional informations which are not in the Proto-Indo-European homeland. I think the "Southern proto-proto Indo-European" section has many issues (It is unnecessarily long and is highly speculative - it needs to be summarized). Sergent is extremely UNDUE and I don't see why his views must be there. QUOTEFARMing is yet another problem. I still think that the pages needs a major cleanup/rewriting and will do this when I have some free time. Puduḫepa 09:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Hello. I have a question regarding this ([[3]]) section of Proto-Indo-European homeland. You recently mentioned (in an edit note) that an explanation of Anthony's criticisms of the southern hypothesis were already described in a note, but I can't seem to find the note anywhere (the "Criticism" section does not seem to include a note). In what area is that note included? (the "Criticism section would seem to me to be one good place for it, and without that information the section describing Anthony's views would seem too brief and insufficiently explained). Thank you.

Update: I finally found the note at the end of this [[4]] section, which seems to be a good place for it as well (since that section introduces the southern hypothesis). But I have also added a similar note to Anthony's "Criticism" section further down (to make it more clear what his criticisms are). Skllagyook (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion. You can copy the same note by giving it a name: {{refn|group=note|name="name"|text of note}} {{refn|group=note|name="name"}}. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: "Proto-proto-Indo-European" is actually a bogus term created by those who still believe in the steppe theory of Indo-European origins, Anatolians are the earliest known Indo-European people and recent genetic studies show that they didn't come from the steppe, it just means Proto-Indo-Europeans didn't live in the steppe. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Proto-Indo-European homeland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Anthony (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed the link. Skllagyook (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Dubious content

Hello Skllagyook. Could you please check the sources[5] the ip added? The PIE homeland stuff, again. Puduḫepa 15:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: Yes, it does indeed look very dubious (aside from it being irrelevant to the section where it was added, i.e. with the Armenian Hypothesis). So far there does not seem to be any basis in the source for the claim by the IP (I'll look tbe source over again to be sure.). Also, from what I can find, tbe Eblaites were a Semitic-speaking people, not IE. Skllagyook (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, by "presence of IE languages", the authors talk about the Hittite invasions of the region - haven't checked the sources yet. But in any case, adding it to that page is obviously SYNTH and OR. Puduḫepa 16:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: I see. That would be a case of OR and/or SYNTH then (but I will continue checking the source). Also, this IP (though you may have already noticed) seems to the same one that added "hyjacked" material (from hyjacked sources) to the Proto-Indo-European homeland and Yamnaya culture pages in October and November respectively (to give two examples) to support the Armenian hypothesis.Skllagyook (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: And now they're edit warring at Armenian hypothesis. I just reverted their reinstatement of the WP:OR you had removed (they had ignored your edit note). See: [[6]]. Skllagyook (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Will report them next time. Puduḫepa 02:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Cushitic languages

Hi Skllagyook! I want to rework the article "Cushitic languages" a bit because 1. it is very heavy on the lede section (with 27 refs!) and 2. it totally lacks information about what these languages actually look like. Since you have made most of the good-quality edits in the last few months, I hope we can collaborate for a improved consensus version (there are others editors in the page hist, but they hardly communicate – I'm sure you know what I am alluding to).

Among other things, I will move some of the sourced information in the third paragraph down to the section "Extinct languages", and just leave a very short summary of the details in the lede. Please feel free to interfere if I mess anything up! –Austronesier (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Sure. That sounds fine to me. Thanks for letting me know. Skllagyook (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit suggestion (AASI genetics and language)

Hello Skllagyook, I have some suggestions and references which may be informative. Narasimhan et al. notes that Dravidian may be the language of the native hunter gatherers (AASI) and not from the arriving West Asian migrants. (He says: “...scenarios in which Dravidian languages derive from pre-Indus languages of peninsular India are also entirely plausible as ASI ancestry is mostly derived from the AASI.”) (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/292581v1.full.pdf). Could you please include this information. The West Asian theory is purley hypothetical and not concensus. Additionally, could you overwork some parts of Dravidian people, the article is biased in supporting the West Asian origin theory, but modern genetics of Dravidian is predominantly AASI not Iranian at all. Additionally this study (https://www.shh.mpg.de/870797/dravidian-languages?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral) suggests that Dravidian is native to South Asia and not from West Asian immigrants. According to the results, Dravidian started to split into the modern dialects about 4,500 years ago.

Some suggest that Dravidian is a creol language between the native hunter gatherers (AASI) and Iranian-related groups. It is likely as IVC is a mix of Iranian and Andamanese-related people. There culture mixed so it is very likely that they languages also mixed.

Another interesting point are the Hoabinhians, Andamanese-related Negrito people in ancient Thailand and Cambodia and parts of Malaysia/Philippines.

Here from Narasimhan (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/292581v1.full.pdf), about AASI influence on outside groups of India: "In fact, the data suggest that instead of the main BMAC population having a demographic impact on South Asia, there was a larger effect of gene flow in the reverse direction, as the main BMAC genetic cluster is slightly different from the preceding Turan populations in harboring ~5% of their ancestry from the AASI."

From Narasimhan 2019 (in section Discussion): "Proto-Dravidian was spread by the approximately half of the ASI’s ancestry that was not from the Indus Periphery Cline, and instead derived from the south and the east (peninsular South Asia). The southern scenario is consistent with reconstructions of Proto-Dravidian terms for flora and fauna unique to peninsular India." and "...However, there are also profound differences between the Bronze Age and Neolithic spreads of ancestry across the two subcontinents. One is that the maximum proportion of local ancestry is higher in South Asia (AASI ancestry of up to ~60%) than Europe (WEHG ancestry of up to ~30%)" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/)

Additionally Shinde et al. notes that the Iranian related groups were not farmers but also hunter gatheres and that the farming evolution was local native to South Asia without West Asian cultural influence. (https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30967-5?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867419309675%3Fshowall%3Dtrue)

I hope this helps, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.217.91 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A lot of what you have left here looks like original research/WP:OR (e.g. the link arguing that Dravidian dates to 4,500 years ago says nothing about whether it originated from the AASI). It may or may not be true or plausible that Dravidian has some AASI or partially AASI root, but unless this is explicitly stated by a reliable source, it cannot be added to any article. (Also, most Dravidian groups are not of majority AASI/ASI ancestry, only a few are, though most Dravidian groups do have significant/substantial AASI and ASI ancestry. And the known Indus Valley samples/individuals, while some have quite significant AASI ancestry, sometimes as much as 40-50%, are not majority/predominantly AASI, with some also having less at I believe around 11-14%.). It does not seem like an AASI-origin-of-Dravidian hypothesis is explicitly proposed by the sources in these links, but I will look over them/double check later to be sure. Skllagyook (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently edited the Dravidian peoples page to include some of the material above (Narasimhan et al. 2018 and Narasimhan et al. 2019). I checked those sources, and it appears that most/much of what you attributed to them (to Narasimhan et al.) is in fact in the source(s) and not WP:OR (I should have checked sooner) - see page 22 of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/ , so I left the additions on the page but made some modifications to them, including: adding parts of the source left out (such as the fact that Narasimhan et al 2019 propose a possible Indus valley region origin for proto-Dravidian (possibly originating or partly originating from the ASI/AASI peoples of that region) as well as a possible alternate southern subcontinent origin scenario, and removing the claim that Dravidians are predominantly ASI (which is only sometimes true) as an argument for an ASI origin for proto-Dravidian (as it is not used that way in the source). Skllagyook (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Truly no implication here, I am just making sure anyone who has edited Race and intelligence in the past two weeks has been properly alerted. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks really appreciate your contributions and for understanding my point MustafaO (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing. Zero^talk 13:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything now. For the future: to get more input on a discussion either ping everyone who has edited on that topic recently (including those likely to disagree with you) or write to some project page. Zero^talk 13:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I think I understand. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I don't agree. Casual pinging isn't a threat. And don't people post to your talk page asking for help? There is no active relevant project, sadly. By relevant I mean one that has editors familiar with genetics. But I am going to ping the participants in the inactive wikiproject human genetics who have edited in the last month. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You don't seem to understand the situation. Pinging only those who you think will support you is a violation and works against getting a valid consensus. Pinging "the participants in the inactive wikiproject human genetics who have edited in the last month" is almost exactly what I advised Skllagyook to do. Zero^talk 23:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I didn't know who he'd pinged. If you mean Tritomex, I don't see the problem, that's more or less a reply. If you mean me, he's reached out to me for help before, he has no idea of my views on Elhaik so far as I know. I doubt that Skllagyook would have thought of that solution but nevermind. As an aside, that's a hard job to do without the script that allows you to see last edits just by hovering over their name. Doug Weller talk 06:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: When I wrote here, s/he had asked Shrike and Tritomex for help. That's a skewed selection of people who had not edited either the article or its talk page since last year. If he also asks people like you, that mitigates the problem, but at that point I don't think s/he had asked. Zero^talk 07:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: ah, I didn't know about Shrike, Tritomex had posted to the thread 6 days ago, that's why I said it looks like a reply. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank You for your edits to Dravidian peoples

Denver Correia | Thank you ~:~:~:~ (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Thank You!

Denver20 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

@Denver20: Thank you! Skllagyook (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Hello S. I have seen a brand new account adding contents on archaeogenetics[7] to certain pages - haven't checked the sources, tbh, since i'm a bit busy with something else nowadays. I just wanted to let you know, as you are a frequent contributor to articles on archaeogenetics. Happy editing and stay healthy. Puduḫepa 05:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: Thank you for letting me know. The additions seem to have been unsuited to those pages (of dubious relevance and possibly Synth). I, and other editors, reverted them. The new editor edit-warred for a while but has so far stopped Skllagyook (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Florence genetics vandal

Hi Skllagyook, thanks for helping to revert the edits from the 62.19.* IPs, that geolocate to Florence, in various genetics articles lately. I think it's pure vandalism/trolling, and can be treated as such - no point in trying to reason with them. They've been at it a long time, see this ANI report; they were blocked for three months, but they're back at it again. I noticed in one edit summary you wrote: "rv unexplained change by possible sock." Just wondering if there was a master account that you know of, or some other history? Anyway, I'm going to ask Berean Hunter about blocking the range again. If you see the user again on other IPs, feel free to let Berean Hunter or another admin, or me, know about it. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all your work on genetic related articles Shrike (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shrike: Thank you very much! Skllagyook (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Warning

your editions in Proto-Indo-European homeland is an example of edit war. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Take care, Skllagyook, and don't take the WP:BAIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  –Darkwind (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

While your behavior in this edit war has not been as egregious as سیمون دانکرک has been, you still violated 3RR with your series of edits here. –Darkwind (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Why u ignoring

U clearly know nothing about genetics dude PoliticalAsianGuy29288282838 (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Just gonna mislead people into thinking somehow Natufians are Arabian and modern Arabians are from Arabians although it’s false PoliticalAsianGuy29288282838 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@PoliticalAsianGuy29288282838: Please be WP:CIVIL and do not make assumptions of bad faith (see WP:AGF and WP:NPA). I responded in the edit notes (Did you read either of them?) and had explained previously. As editors it is not our job to apply our own personal analyses to sources. That would be WP:OR. As I wrote: "Your personal opinions/analyses are not relevant.... That's not how Wikipedia works. [They/those analyses] are original research (See WP:OR) which is against wikipedia policies." Also, in response to your concern I did actually modify/reword the section so that it no longer mentions "Arabian" ancestry specifically, but rather "various elements from the Middle East/West Asia", here: [[8]]. Skllagyook (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Kudos for consistent defense and making WP a better place. Puduḫepa 16:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: Thank you! Skllagyook (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you have a look?

Hi Skllagyook! I would to know your second opinion about this section: Filipinos#Origins and genetic studies. IMO, I relies too heavily on cranial studies, and quite often conflates cranial studies and genetic studies. One cranial study ascribes 24% "African" ancestry to the Negritos, which is quite at odds with genetic findings and also our knowledge about human expansion in Asia. Maybe I'm wrong, and all is well-founded, but your dissecting scrutiny which I have seen before in many pages will be very helpful to confirm or falsify my doubts. –Austronesier (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I'll try to look when I can. Thanks for letting me know. Also,can you link to the study claiming 24% African ancestry in Negritos? That figure (which fortunately does not seem to be in the text of the article) seems almost certainly incorrect, and/or very possibly from a dodgy source (there's no evidence of any special African affinity in Negritos or other Oceanians - and indeed that would be very at odds with everything we know) but there was a fringe multiregionalist paper by a Chinese author claiming something similar not long ago.Skllagyook (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This[9] is the paper which is cited in footnote [110] of the current version. We had a related discussion about a different study in Talk:Philippines#Does Forensic Anthropology also study Ethnic groups?. –Austronesier (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier:. So far, from what I have read of the paper (I'm still reading), since it is based on craniometrics alone, not genetics, it would seem very bizzare (and I think not really possible) to use that to infer that Negritos have African ancestry. It's not surprising that some or many Negritos might somewhat resemble Africans craniometrically, since they can often resemble them in appearance in various respects, despite not being genetically related to Africans, with both being tropical/hot weather-adapted and with Negritos having retained certain old tropical/heat adapted African OOA traits lost in certain other human populations (though I believe, in dental analyses, Asian Negritos, varying by group, instead most resemble either Southeast Asians, Oceanians, or South Asians). Thus their finding would hardly seem to be evidence of a gentic relationship between Negritos and Africans or of African admixture in the former. This is especially true since the study also does not even seem to include an Oceanian/Australo-Melanesian sample group with which to compare the Negritos(!) (it only includes European East Asian, African, and Negrito samples) and in the absence of an Australomelanesian sample (seemingly somewhat misleadingly) finds that they show similarities to Africans (I will continue reading.) Anyway (partly for reasons such as this), craniological analysis is a far less reliable method of determining genetic affinity/admixture/origins than genetic analysis is.

However, despite the paper's strange framing, it also seems to acknowledge that the "African" (African-like) affinities present in Negritos (and other Filipinos) are/may be the result of migrations in deep history ("early peopling" - following the OOA) rather than any recent African admixture (as such).

In the section titled "Population Structure" , they write:

"Results show the history of population interactions within Asia, revealing the vestiges of European colonial-ism, and even the extent of European presence, as well as the substantial impact of early peopling from Africa."

Skllagyook (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights! I agree, whatever they have found there must be an out-of-Africa relic feature, which lead to this "paraphlyletic" analysis of the data, which is only phenotypical anyway. Maybe it is also due to the fact that data from "Australo-Melanesian" peoples plays a minor role in US-based forensic anthropology because they are only marginally represented in the US population (?) –Austronesier (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A-Group language

Hi, The A-Group predates kerma, can you please provide a source where we can check your claim that says recent linguistic research indicates they spoke Nilo-Saharan most of the sources you added are either inaccessible or foreign. Thank you. Dalhoa (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: The Rilly and Cooper sources should not be inaccessible. The complete versions should be linked, But here is link to an earlier discussion I had in the Kerma culture Talk page citing Cooper and Rilly (also with links). Rilly posits that the Kerma culture spoke a Nilo-Saharan language (which he believes was ancestral to the later Meroitic language of Nubia), and also Cooper posits that the Kerma peoples spoke a Nilo-Sahaharan language (with the more Northern C-Group culture likely speaking a Cushitic language). Also, I'm not sure what the A-Group culture predating Kerma has to do with it (as far as I know, the sources do not mention a likely language affinity for the A-group, and if they did, it would not be relevant to that of Kerma or the C-Group unless explicitly said to be by the author(s). I will now go through the relevant refs on the Cushitic peoples page and make sure they link to the full sources so they can be read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kerma_culture#Sources_and_language_affinity_of_Kerma.

And another section where I cited Rilly and Cooper (the section was begun by an other user, Yacoob316, who didi nit sign their comments (the comments responding to them with my signature are, of course, mine).:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kerma_culture#both_cushitic_and_nilotic_languages_were_spoken_in_kerma_according_to_julian_riley

Skllagyook (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Upon checking, two of the refs no longer had accessible full versions linked, that had had them before (someone may have edited them resulting in their removal), so I added links to full versions of the sources the to Cooper 2017, Rilly 2010, and Rilly 2008 refs. Skllagyook (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I see that the source you added (a piece by Rilly) does briefly speculate about the linguistic affinity of the A-Group culture (the A-Group culture, not Kerma), but it's conclusion seems to be that the affinity of the culture's language is uncertain, and suggests that it could have been either Nilo-Saharan (which he suggests Kerma was in the other sources) or Afro-Asiatic (including Cushitic). But he does not believe it belonged to the same branch of the Nilo-Saharan family (North Eastern Sudanic) to which he believes the language of the Kerma people and the Meroitic language belonged. On page 135, Rilly says:

"The A-Group population...predates the Wadi Howar diasopora, so that is is unlikely that the language of the A-Group might have belonged to the Northern East Sudanic family. However, the range of possibilities remains wide, from Eastern Sudanic and other branches of Eastern Nilo-Saharan to Cushitic." (he also then mentions the possibility that it could have belonged to another, perhaps unknown, branch of the Afro-Asiatic family). Here below (see page 134):

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mXWcDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=C-Group&f=false (alternate link to the same source - the page menu tab is at the top left of page, and the book's pages can be turned with the arrows near the top right: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Handbook_of_Ancient_Nubia/mXWcDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Handbook+of+Ancient+Nubia&printsec=frontcover)

Anyway, whether or not the A-Group culture spoke a Cushitic language is not necessarily especially relevant to whether the Kerma culture spoke one, especially since the A-Group existed mainly in northern (Lower) Nubia, while the Kerma culture was based in southern (Upper Nubia). Also, migrations from other areas may change linguistic affinities in a place.

The above is the same source that you added seemingly as a source in support of the hypothesis that the Kerma culture spoke a Cushitic language, but the source does not seem to make that claim (certainly Rilly does not, nor do the other pages of the source you cited the ref). On page 136 (at the above link), Rilly states that Behaus-Gerst's theory of a Cushitic substratum in the Nubian language (which Bechaus-Gerst though to be the remnant of a Cushitic Kerma language) has been refuted (by Rilly/himself), and Rilly makes that case in other sources as well. Skllagyook (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, on page 136 (page 136 at this link: [[10]]), Rilly speculates the the C-Group language might also have been Nilo-Saharan (The substratum present in Old Nubian/Nobiin...clearly belongs to another North East Sudanic language...It could have been the language of the C-Group..."), but does not come to any strong conclusions regarding this. This would differ somewhat from the position of Cooper, who agrees with Rilly that the language of the Kerma civilization was Nilo-Saharan, but believes that (unlike the Kerma culture) the C-Group culture likely spoke a Cushitic language. However Rilly (on pages 132 and 133 of the same source) does argue (like Cooper also did) that the Medjay and Blemmyes cultures (also of Northern Nubia) spoke Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Skllagyook (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I was accused of not being collegial, so I politely ask in the spirit of collegiality that you add back the source you removed about the A-Group speaking Cushitic, the wiki is about the Cushitic people, can you also add the source to the A-Group wiki, now that you have a source that says they spoke Cushitic. Thank you. Dalhoa (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: The source says the A-Group might have spoken Cushitic (or Nilo-Saharan except for the North Eastern Sudanic branch of Nilo-Saharan, or possibly a branch of Afro-Asiatic besides Cushitic - see Rilly's quote above). The source presents all these as possibilities. I removed the source because you had inaccurately added it as supporting the hypothesis that the Kerma culture spoke Cushitic. But I can certainly add it back, and will present it as suggesting that the A-Group culture might have spoken Cushitic (among other possibilities). Skllagyook (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Please no pov, the source I added clearly states A-Group spoke cushitic and their remnants too, you can directly quote like I do, if you want to quote your Rilly you can do so but please no pov and synthesis to mix the two. Dalhoa (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I am not sure what POV or synthesis you mean. Rilly is the source you added (His piece on languages was included among others in Dietrich's book which you cited), and it , as mentioned above, presents Cushitic as one possibility for the A-Group language. I recently added it to the page with text summarizing his position. I also quoted him above. Here again in full:

"The A-Group population was settled along the Nile between the north iff Aswan ands the Second Cataract from approximately 3700 until 2800 BC. It predates the Wadi Howar diasopora, so that is is unlikely that the language of the A-Group might have belonged to the Northern East Sudanic family. However, the range of possibilities remains wide, from Eastern Sudanic and other branches of Eastern Nilo-Saharan to Cushitic. It could even be a scion of an extinct Afro-Asiatic family of which Egyptian is the only known member." (page 134. [[11]])

There is no POV or synthesis in my addition (which cites Rilly). It is simply based on Rilly's statement (above) regarding the A-Group language.

What source clearly states that the A-Group culture spoke a Cushitic language (without other possibilities as Rilly gave)? can you link it here (with page numbers if applicable)? Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Again please this is the stonewalling I talked about I am trying work with you here, this source clearly states A-Group spoke Cushitic confirmed by EL sayed and Chen, please cite your Rilly separately with your own source and let people verify.Dalhoa (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: What stonewalling? Please stop assuming my motivations. I just asked you to cite the source that states that clearly? I had no problem citing my sources (as I have here and elsewhere). Can you cite Sayed and Chen where they state that? what are the sources? (What works is it in and where is it stated?). Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The source states .... it is unlikely that the language of the A-Group might have belonged to the Northern East Sudanic family and then they conclude by stating they spoke Cushitic. You seem 100% certains about the other languages you added to the wiki even though they are uncertain but for this group you state unknown when the source doesn't even use that word. Does that seem balanced to you?Dalhoa (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: The source indeed says North Eastern Sudanic is unlikely (which I added). But it does not conclude that the language was Cushitic. It does not conclude very much at all. It says: "the range of possibilities remains wide" and then goes on to give the possibilities, which include Cushitic, a branch of Eastern Sudanic that is not the Northern East Sudanic branch (of Eastern Sudanic), other branches of Eastern Nilo-Saharan, or another branch of Afro-Asiatic. It does not conclude in favor of one (it only says that it is unlikely to be of the Northern East Sudanic branch of Eastern Sudanic, but could belong to another branch of Eastern Sudanic). Northern East Sudanic is a branch of Eastern Sudanic, which is in turn a branch of Eastern Nilo-Saharan. The quote (again) says:

"...so that is is unlikely that the language of the A-Group might have belonged to the Northern East Sudanic family. However, the range of possibilities remains wide, from Eastern Sudanic and other branches of Eastern Nilo-Saharan to Cushitic. It could even be a scion of an extinct Afro-Asiatic family of which Egyptian is the only known member." Skllagyook (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I just noticed you edited the page according to your above (inaccurate) interpretation without reading or responding to my most recent reply to you (seeming to have ignored it). Please do not ignore my responses and continue to edit war (while refusing to discuss). You have done this before to me and I have seen you do it to other users. If you do it again you will be reported. Again please read the response. I quoted Rilly again. What he says is very clear, and it is not what you are claiming. Skllagyook (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: The other languages I added (as you say) are presented as the most likely by the respective authors that propose them. This is different because Rilly clearly does not favor one possibility for the A-group language (except in saying that it is not likely of the Northern Eastern branch of the Eastern Sudanic branch of the Nilo-Saharan family). Skllagyook (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Skyllagyook stop with the threat I am trying to work with you here ok, where does it say in my source that the language is unknown?Dalhoa (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You do not seem to be doing that, given the meritless accusations you have made, and your seeming insistence on editing the page without engaging with my replies. Rilly says that "the range of possibilities remains wide", and gives a list of possibilities from more than one language family. This clearly means that he considers the affinity of the A-Group language unknown (there are several disparate possibilities, none of which he seems to favor). Describing it as "unknown" is a perfectly accurate characterization, at least of Rilly's opinion (I could add something to make not clear that it is "unknown" according to some research, but there does not seem to be other research with another opinion, i.e. a hypothesis more clearly suggesting one affinity over others, so this would seem pointless unless a different opinion on the A-Group language is cited). If there is such a source/sources (with a more specific opinion than Rilly's; i.e. suggesting a specific linguistic affiliation for the A-Group) I would/will of course add it. Skllagyook (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you know why I came here and asked that you add the A-Group instead of me doing?Dalhoa (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: First you asked me about the Kerma sources, so I provided links and explanations. Regarding the A-Group, what you want to add is not supported by the sources (that have been presented). If there is another source/sources that do/does support it, then present it. I asked you to do that and you have not done so. If content is not clearly and explicitly supported by a source, it cannot be included on the page. I don't see what the problem is with that. Skllagyook (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Skllagyook cut the bs please you do not have ownership of the wiki, I am going to tell you why I came here, I came here because I wanted to see what you would write after I saw you edit at the A-Group wiki and I am not disappointed lets put it that.Dalhoa (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean, but it is clearly very hostile and accusatory. I do not claim to have ownership of any wiki, but there are rules here, and content must be sourced (and accurately reflect the sources). You are treating me with hostility and as though I am unreasonable for upholding that very basic Wikipedia policy, while refusing to answer by simple questions with straight answers. I have explained my reasoning here (and elsewhere) and your aspersions are unjustified. You have been warned about this kind of conduct before. This clearly requires outside intervention. You seem unwilling to be reasonable. Skllagyook (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Skllagyook chill with the threats I am trying to be collegial here, I know you edit a lot but you need to stop the pov and synthesis, this little experiment told me you are still doing it. Finale note, you need to add your Rilly source to support that statement.Dalhoa (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: You are not being collegial in the least, not remotely. You are making repeated accusations and baselessly accusing me of POV and sythesis (and "bs" and "stonewalling", among other things). When you have not demonstrated any POV or synthesis on my part, and I have explained more than once why I have done neither. You are being extremely hostile and belligerent for no perceptible reason. Ignoring my explanations and continuously repeating the same old accusations and personal attacks is not nice (to say the least) and it is far from collegial. The Rilly source is already cited on the page and I have linked and quoted it here repeatedly. Skllagyook (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Skllagyook, please add your Rilly source to the statement to avoid the pov or synthesis because my source does not say what you are saying, this is very important and it allows the Encyclopedia users to verify any claims.Dalhoa (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: What source do you have that says something about the A-Group language that is different from Rilly. I have asked you this repeatedly and you have refused to answer or produce it (still ignoring me). What is this source of yours you keep claiming to have (link? quote? page number? title? something?). You cannot just make claims without a source. I have already cited Rilly repeatedly in this discussion (and on the page). The quotes and and link from him are above. Again, please do not ignore my responses. I have explained this already. Please stop this and actually listen. Skllagyook (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I was being a bit of a talk page stalker thinking there’s no way Dalhoa gets along with other editors what with his attitude, and boy, was I right or what? This conversation is such a frustrating read and if I may drop my two cents here I think you should spare yourself the carpal tunnel because this is the opposite of productive.

@MusIbr: Thank you. Dalhoa has engaged in this kind of conduct before (with me and others), and has been warned (but is apparently continuing). I have left a message regarding this the on User Talk page of the administrator User:Doug Weller, who warned Dalhoa before, and has recently had an (also somewhat non-productive) exchange with Dalhoa. Hopefully something can be done. Skllagyook (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither i or cooper have stated they were cushitic speaking,im simply pointing out that nilo saharan was absent in pre meroitic nubia,which is where the A group was from,not that they were certainly afro asiatic (which is why i said "possibly" the earlier A-group),

I wasn't Infering an implication,cooper states 'Thus, Pre-Meroitic Lower Nubia cannot have been occupied by speakers of an allied Nilo-Saharan language but must have been occupied by speakers of a wholly different language.' were the A-group not a population of "pre-meroitic" Lower nubia? cooper clearly exludes nilo saharan influence on pre-meroitic lower nubia

my point is not that they were cushitic or afro asiatic ,but rather that they were unlikley to be nilo saharan speakers

@Jedorton:. I noticed you reverted and reinstated your edit again before any discussion had ocurred. That should not happen before WP:CONSENSUS is reached. Regarding your post above, your interpretation could have been intended by the author (Cooper), and it seems plausible but far from certain/clear. Cooper in the quote (what is the page number by the way?) speaks of/excludes "allied Nilo-Saharan languages" (from early Lower Nubia) rather than Nilo-Saharan (NS) languages in general. One asks, allied to what? He could possibly be referring to NS languages of the Eastern Sudanic branch in particular, since in the study he argues that Eastern Sudanic languages were spoken in south and central (i.e. Upper) Nubia at the time, and that Meroitic was one of those. He could be (and also seems plausibly to be) arguing that NS lamguages allied to those (i.e. Eastern Sudanic) such as Meroitic could not have been spoken in Lower Nubia (but, perhaps, like Rilly, does not exclude other branches of the NS family from possibly existing there) - i.e., it was not a NS language allied to Meroitic.

It is not entirely clear what he means. It is clear that Cooper is arguing that Cushitic/Afro-Asiatic (and not NS) languages were spoken in Lower Nubia from the time of the C-Group to the beginning of the Meroitic period, and it is tempting to assume that he means this to apply to the A-Group also. But the A-Group period was earlier than that the C-Group, and it does not seem certain that he does. It is clear however, that he is stating that prior to the Meroitic period (and the arrival of the Meroitic language), the peoples of Lower Nubia (including the A-Group people) could not have spoken NS languages allied to Meroitic (and other Eastern Sudanic NS languages spoken in Upper Nubia). But that is all that seems certain from the quote you provided and the source. Thus it seems more appropriate to re-word the addition to read something like:

"According to Julien Cooper (2017), the peoples of Lower Nubia (where the A-Group resided) did not speak Nilo-Saharan languages of the Eastern Sudanic branch (which he argues were prevalent in Upper Nubia) until the arrival of Meroitic."

Also, please sign your posts (by typing four tildes, i.e. ~) to avoid confusion. Skllagyook (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is best continued on the A-Group culture Talk page, here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A-Group_culture#External_links_modified

WP:ANI

"Any help is appreciated "

I took a look, and if you have anything to add, now is the time and this is the place. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Thank you. I will see if I can think of anything. Skllagyook (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Jewish diaspora

The editor there is making a bit of a mess. No edit summaries, google urls to books instead of proper citations, so virtually useless. He used a grad student as a source (yes, a Haaretz writer, but we need real academics). I'd revert to a clean version but your edits are in between. If you look at my edit summary he also changed the meaning of a sentence so it no longer matched the source, which makes me think he didn't check it and just put what he thought the text should say. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: My appologies for taking so long to respond. It seems that you may have corrected/revised at least some of their problematic edits to the page after you posted this message. But I will try to look over their edits later when I can.Skllagyook (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Why we should provide the reason for african groups performing better at school in UK

hello my recent edit about sub saharan africans doing better at school is legit and is being sourced with a trusted source( pew research). The page is about IQ difference and not accadamical attainments but nevertheless someone wrote that some african groups perform better at school without telling why? it is because sub saharan immigrants are highly educated than the native britons. These highly educated immigrants went to UK for good paying jobs through scholarships and employemnt based visas. I dont know why you dont want that info in the page that i put.q Abedidos (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Abedidos: It is better to discuss this on the article's Talk page than on my personal page. The problems with your addition were already explained in my edit note (and in that of User:Snowded). As I explained, the conclusion you are trying to draw is not explicit in the source. Drawing your own conclusions not explicit in a source is WP:OR and combining two or more sourcesfor a conclusion is WP:Synthesis. Both are against Wikipedia policies. Your added comment seems to fall under both of these categories; it is a personal analysis (your own opinion about the "reason") that is not explicitly supported by any source. Said opinion is irrelevant unless you can find a reliable source (WP:RS) that explicitly states it. The topic is relevant to the issue of IQ partly because it concerns test scores that are closely correlated to IQ - performances on similar tests, such as the SATs, are discussed elsewhere in the article. Also, as mentioned, those whose scores are discussed are not the adult African immigrants themselves (who may or may not be disporportionately educated) but their UK-raised offspring. Thus for this reason also, your addition lacks relevance and does not seem appropriate in this context. Skllagyook (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I cited the source i used. Look at it before claiming it is invalid or unreliable. Pew Research or Eurosta is not unreliable source. Abedidos (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Abedidos: Please read my reply. The point was not that the source is (necessarily) invalid, but rather the way you were using it (to draw a conclusion it does not explicitly make, using WP:OR). Also, again, it is better to discuss this in the article's Talk page than here. Skllagyook (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous Aryans

You seem to be misunderstanding the RfC. It was about whether the term should be added and there was no consensus to add it. 'Fringe' is unsourced since no sources directly use this WP:LABEL. Azuredivay (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Azuredivay: It is best to discuss this on the page's Talk page rather than here.Skllagyook (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Apparently you have failed to understand my message above. I am giving you opportunity to self-revert and it should be done ASAP. Azuredivay (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars, and change your tone. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Azuredivay: Your deletion seemed to be against WP:CONSENSUS, and changing the stable version of the page. I reverted it twice (and not three times, or more than three times, which would have violated the 3rr rule). At any rate, I was reverted (and then later unreverted). But whatever happens (if I am "re-reverted"/"reverted again"), I will not reinstate the/my edit again (if at all) until the matter has been discussed on the Talk page. Skllagyook (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Heads-up on 1RR

Heya! Just a heads-up that your completely good-faith revert of a disruptive new POV-pusher at Race and intelligence could technically trigger a 1RR sanction. I'd hate to see that! And I've just warned this user for the same thing. Consider self-reverting just to be on the safe side? I'll bet someone who hasn't reverted there recently will swoop in and get it done soon, and if not you or I can also always do it tomorrow. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Article 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 are 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 being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--DishingMachine (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@DishingMachine:, and @Generalrelative:, I have self-reverted. Skllagyook (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Kanazawa-Kiriyama et al. 2017

Just a heads up there's someone using different IP addresses to insert inaccurate claims about the papers findings on Mal'ta-Buret' Culture, Ancient North Eurasian, and Karitiana. At this point it seems that its either intentional misinformation or someone who doesn't understand what the paper's findings. My edits give the relevant info about Karitiana->Mal'ta gene flow without any bias so I don't think you should have a problem with it. 50.92.71.79 (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Iranian hunter-gatherers in India

I've re-arranged the info at Caucasus hunter-gatherer, and found these interesting pieces of info, which I added to Indo-Aryan migrations#Pre-agricultural migrations:

Narasimhan et al. (2019) conclude that ANI and ASI were formed in the 2nd millennium BCE.[212] They were preceded by IVC-people, a mixture of AASI (ancient ancestral south Indians, that is, hunter-gatherers related), and people related to but distinct from Iranian agri-culturalists, lacking the Anatolian farmer-related ancestry which was common in Iranian farmers after 6000 BCE.[213][note 43] (There was a rapid increase of the south Caucasian population at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, about 18,000 years ago,[216] and Near East and Caucasus people probably also migrated to Europe during the Mesolithic, around 14,000 years ago.[217])

Very interesting; if CHG could reach Europe at that time, then they could easily reach India. Also an interesting argument against the 'Iranian "Hypothesis"'; not to mention "Gallego-Llorente et al. (2016), conclude that Iranian populations are not a likelier source of the 'southern' component in the Yamnaya than Caucasus hunter-gatherers.[21]" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Interesting. Gallego-Llorente would indeed fit the idea of CHG coming from the Caucasus rather than Iran. But on the other hand, regarding early Caucasus groups in Europe, the people of the Dnieper–Donets culture and I think the Samara culture in the western steppe/eastern European steppe seem to have lacked CHG ancestry (having only EHG or EHG and WHG), which makes me wonder how early or widespread Caucasus ancestry could have been in Europe at (or perhaps if it involved group distinct from that associated with "CHG") - of course I might be misunderstanding something. Skllagyook (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Haplogroup D-CTS3946

I have refomed my addition and commented on the talk page. I appreciate your arguments and agree, however I still dl not understand them regarding Cabrera et al. (I do not get it, sorry). I hope you understand my concerns, but I hope that a third user comment will make it more clear. Maybe I simply completely misunderstand the topic, but I still think that it is the right thing. Anyway, feel free to edit or correct my addition, my English is likely not the best. 46.125.250.59 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that another user seems to have deleted references included by you which concerns the D2/D0 samples. Any idea why? And another question, the FTDNA picture of the clade tree does use a different name than D-CTS3946. Which is now the correct term?46.125.250.59 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

They seem to have deleted the referrences because they were not formatted properly, and thus looked like "spam" (with bare url). I will have to try to reformat them properly later so they can be re-added. Your changes to the section you added did not address the main issues, which I explained. And your additions are still very misleading. Please continue this discussion on the article's talk page rather than here. Skllagyook (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I commented there. Thank you for the explanation.46.125.250.59 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sephardim etc

Re that inclusion. Omitting that wasn't censoring anything. Rather it reflected my perplexity in what appeared to be dellaPergola's loose use of 'Sephardim', which - a common conflation - he appeared to mean also Mizrahim and North African Jews under that umbrella term. For that matter, in the stricter meaning, Sephardi mtDNA studies have show that that group are closer to Spanish than Jewish populations (as contrariwise the opposite picture emerges if one focuses of their Y chromosomes). In that perspective the point made struck me as just question-begging, aside from being confusing, and best omitted, I thought. The field is so conceptually fluid that confusions are frequent. Still, I've no problem in including that assertion. Cheers- Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The Notorious AT.I.P.

Hi Skllagyook! I have seen you have interacted with them when I made a range check[12] after reverting entirely meritless edits to Minatogawa Man and Hoabinhian. Just in case you might also want to add these two pages to your watchlist. Btw, here is more of them from today:[13] (got that range from Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia–the same one that you reported to Doug Weller). It's incredible how many editors are kept busy to clean up their POV and CIR mess. Unfortunately Berean Hunter isn't active anymore who did a lot to counter their socking. –Austronesier (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

MiszaBot

I've tken the liberty to add MiszaBot; your talkpage becomes quite long. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Appalachian music

Hello Skllagyook,

I am trying to edit Appalachian musig page for my project and I saw that you delete some of the parts that I write can you please give me a more information of why you are deleting it? After I will work in that way. Thank you. Melisa Nur Temiz (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Melisa Nur Temiz: I am not sure what you are referring to. Can you link the edit (a diff) where I deleted that material. Thank you. From what I can see here [[14]], it was another user that deleted your additions rather than me. You may ask them (though my guess might be that they, or some, were WP:UNDUE and focused too much on a single person of questionable notability - but again, you should ask the other user.) Skllagyook (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Questions about cites

Hi,

I see you reverted my edits to the article Indo-European migrations. The material you restored has the following text as cites number 20 and 21:

"... the parallels between the Intelligent Design issue and the Indo-Aryan "controversy" are distressingly close. The Indo-Aryan controversy is a manufactured one with a non-scholarly agenda, and the tactics of its manufacturers are very close to those of the ID proponents mentioned above. However unwittingly and however high their aims, the two editors have sought to put a gloss of intellectual legitimacy, with a sense that real scientific questions are being debated, on what is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus."

and

"The indigenist position is part of a "lunatic fringe"."

Are the above a user's opinions or are they from a reliable source? I find it difficult to believe a respectable source would use such language.

Thanks,

JS (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jayanta Sen:. It is better to discuss this on the article's Talk page rather than here. But suffice to say: Indigenous Aryanism, in the modern era, is generally considered fringe and pseudoscholarly. The text is from reliable sources, some of which are cited on the Indigenous Aryanism page (also see the "Rejection by mainstream scholarship" section of the page, here: [[15]]). However it seems that User:Richard Keatinge may not have formatted the refs/cites he added correctly, making their origins unclear (I will try to have a look at that when I can). But I added other refs to the article that also support the text (one containing quotes from authors), so his cites are no longer the only ones. Skllagyook (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Skllagyook, and my apologies for mis-formatting the refs. I realize that Harvard referencing has its good points but find it awkward to implement. I need more practice. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Posted the following to the talk page. Thanks, JS (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-European_migrations&diff=prev&oldid=1020642008

Proposed deletion of Cushitic peoples

Hello. I am proposing the deletion of the page Cushitic peoples for reasons found on its Talk page. You have contributed to this page in the past year. You may have an opinion on this matter. Pathawi (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi. Would you please take a look at Iranian_peoples#Cultural_assimilation? There are some citations (DNA and genetic stuff) which may be misrepresented or falsified. Cheers! Wario-Man ^talk 17:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I will try to look at it when I get the chance. Skllagyook (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

My deep, sincere apology to you

First of all, and again, my deep & sincere apology to you.

Even before I found your concern here,[16] I found that the title was mistakenly named under your ID. (Unlike the User:Baikal13 and the User:AsadalEditor, I was having constant conflict in my mind whether to include you in the list, but the constant thinking of your ID rather mistakenly led me to write you on the title.) I was trying hard to change it, but the only way to change the title seemed to be creating an another investigation page.

During my own additional research after the request for additional info, I found your exact same concern as me in February, and I do even more want to change the title of the page if there is a way to do it. (If you know how to change the title, please feel free to do so.)

As I mentioned, unlike the User:Baikal13 and User:AsadalEditor, I wasn't too sure whether it was right to include you, when I opened the investigation page, because unlike the 2 users and the IPs, User:Baikal13's overlapping history was the only reason. It seems that the user knows your concern, and I am just personally curious whether the user was tracking your history after seeing the comment on the talk page.

Again, I understand your frustration, and your frustration on the other user's comment as well. It's all my fault to name you on the title, and my mistake led the other user's innocent comment (based on good faith) to be a bad one. I would like to express my sincere apology once again to you and the other user.

Regards, Jejuminjok (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just realized what this is about. WTF... –Austronesier (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI

I just left an apology at ANI following Bishonen's comment. (I probably would have left it after your response to me, except I didn't see it because the ping was very broken.) All the best, JBL (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll:. Thank you. I just saw (as well as Bishonen's comment). Thank you for the apology. Skllagyook (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Elaborating on my previous answer

I feel I owe you a more detailed reply to your ANI post since it seemed to rattle you pretty badly.

Am (or was) I suspected of some kind of abuse or violation? (The IP user above mentioned the SPI people).

No. I suspect nothing when i come into suspected cases of the relevant LTA, however in the interest of doing a thorough job I make a point to investigate all sides of the claim when I suspect the LTA accounts in question to be involved. That includes looking at the original poster to enure no "good hand/bad hand" accounts.

And what is a good hand / bad hand account?

Some of our more resourceful, more intelligent, or in some cases more frightening LTAs attempt to disguise themselves by creating multiple accounts and then using some to raise hell and others to stop the mayhem. On Wikipedia, this kind of set up is known as "good hand/ bad hand" in reference to the fact that a single person owns both accounts and will use a "bad account" to create problems so that they can then use the "good account" to come in stop the problem. In so doing, the community sides with the "good hand" account and this in turn lets troublemakers use so called "good hand" accounts to alter, trim, or otherwise make contributions that they may not have otherwise been able to make without a perception that they had "done the right thing" or "stopped previous issues" or so forth in the article space and elsewhere. One of the best - if begrudgingly unethical - ways to catch and stop this behavior is to carpet bomb, as it were: if we assume all accounts are operated by the same person, then in theory they should all share the same general editing patterns and interests, where as accounts that are unrelated to each other should have a more diverse editing history. In this case, for example, if we look at both your account and the isp account and found most of your edits were to Iran and Islam and Persia and so forth in that manner, it would suggest a "good hand/ bad hand" account, whereas if I look at the two accounts and the isp is interest in the middle east and your edits are for Europe and logistics and space exploration and so forth in that manner then its far less likely the two of you are being operated by a single user because single users don't typically diversify to that extent, which in turn means two different people and therefore no attempts to have one account sacficised to the other to obtain community support for actions down the road.

When they mentioned tracking "a group of editors coordinating off wiki" who does that refer to?

Some of our more resourceful, more intelligent, or in some cases more frightening LTAs are aware of the fact that if they manifest on site they will be pounced on and locked out almost immediately. To counter this, more creative attempts to disrupt articles from LTA-based editors typically occur on off site forums (4chan, reddit, twitter, facebook, and istagram, to name a few of the more commonly known ones). In this case specifically, me and another editor going by the handle Klz55 have been on to a group of nationalistic based editors who, despite being banned nearly two years ago, keep popping up to make edits here. Since their MO is known to us on site they've taken to working on public chat forums to ID articles that have information they wish to adjust and then make their move after working on the public forum sites to develop rough drafts for what they want the articles to say. Because the discussions take place off site no one on Wikipedia would be wiser for the coordinated editing effort - unless of course they knew where to look to find any attempt at off site coordination of article based edits, and in this case none of the half a dozen or so sites watched for coordination efforts have info on an article on Wikipedia that needs to be "tweaked" to their specifications, as it were.

Have I done something wrong? I am neither a sock nor a meat puppet. I have never had any account but this one, and I don't coordinate with anyone off wiki and never have. I'm a little alarmed and confused that I was mentioned (Maybe I'm overreacting or misunderstanding?). Any explanation is much appreciated. Thank you.

The long and short of it is no. You've not done anything wrong, and nothing I see suggests your part of or affiliated with the LTA account in question. I mentioned you only to draw your attention to the fact that I did in fact return as I said I would to look into this, but in hindsight without a better explanation my attempt at calming the situation backfired pretty badly. Admins are supposed to be fire fighters, not fire starters, and this was a pretty bad attempt on my part to fight fire without checking to see whether the bucket had water or gasoline in it. For that you have my apologies. (Part of this may be that, if I'm reading your history right, you've never encountered any of our LTAs either, if not then I'm sure this was a very rattling experience, all the more so since LTA accounts are usually DMZ zones that see a lot of crossfire as it were.)

I hope that this more elaborated explanation was helpful and hopefully answered some of those lingering questions. If you have any other questions/concerns/comments, feel free to drop me a line and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@TomStar81:. Thank you very much for your explanation. I confess I was indeed rattled. I have encountered LTA (long term abuse?) accounts before (in the form of sockpuppets for example and serial sock creators), but had never (as far as I knew) seen a case of a good hand/bad hand account (nor heard the term). But it's good to know. Skllagyook (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You're correct, LTA is long term abuse. Most of it is caught and reverted quickly, and since the perpetrators often tire of the uphill climb it bleeds off in a few months. More radicalized LTA accounts, however, can last for years, with the worst of the worst collected at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse for admins and others to read up on and receive advise on how to deal with the troublemakers - and sadly, instructions for who to turn to when receiving death threats and such from the accounts. I've tangled with some the accounts at WP:LTA, notably as a younger admin dealing with a few throw away accounts from an LTA on the LTA page which shall remain unnamed, and in every case its been one of those here and gone things, but for some reason with the Horn of Africa accounts I've become the lead investigator, so this case still follows me to some extent, hence why I looked into it in the first place. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

		The Purple Barnstar
		For grace under fire at WP:ANI, and for allowing an Admin to elaborate on his answer several days later without undo drama in the down time period, you are awarded this Purple Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Genetic studies on Jews

"having 50% or more of their ancestry from people related to groups who lived in the Bronze Age Levant and the Chalcolithic Zagros." You added quotation marks. Is that a quote? Editor2020 (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Editor2020: Yes. It is a quote. Skllagyook (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Editor2020 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard re: WP:SCIRS, population genetics, etc.

I would like to know if you are aware of the recent proposal to upgrade WP:SCIRS to guideline/policy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Official_policy_regarding_genetics_sources

People have been discussing this for ages but this is the first actionable proposal that I'm aware of. I appreciate your comments. Have a great day. Hunan201p (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Skllagyook, please be aware that this user was banned several times for pushing racist and racial POV, please be mindful of his intentions. He is also known to coordinate his racist activities on reddit (see on his talk page) and targeting and monitoring asian-focused subreddits. 2A01:E0A:D9:AD0:A8CC:8149:A53F:5A9C (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

What is going on?

Why are you changing my edits? I will add more sources to them this time and you cannot simply revert them because it doesn’t fit your worldview. AASI is a purely East Eurasian lineage that is nested deeply within the East Eurasian clade. It has nothing to do with the Onge, Andamanese or Australian Aboriginals. All the latest research shows that the Onge are best modeled as ancient East Asians, and are coancestral to East and SE Asians. They are much more closely related to East and SE Asians than they are to AASI.

Furthermore, no Australoid ancestry exists in South Asia, and there is no relationship with Australian Aboriginals or Melanesians with the AASI. Finally, why are you removing the statements referring to the fact that the bulk of ancestry of South Asians is West and Central Asian derived? This is a fact, as most South Asians have far more ancestry from West Eurasians (including West and Central Asians) than East Eurasians. How do you think Nikki Haley is born? Magic trick? She is at least 85% West Eurasian, like most endogamous NW South Asians and looks White.

You are also removing the fact that the Han Chinese were found to be a better proxy for AASI than the Onge or Andamanese, and the fact that there are different AASI strains within the country, all of whom have equally high AASI levels but still look and are different from each other. Furthermore, AASI has been found in both modern admixture and in ancient components throughout West Asia, Central Asia and even in Europe, at different levels, and the Steppe component contains AASI among other components in Europe. I plan to add multiple sources for each of these claims the next time I edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:F:561A:0:0:0:C (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have explained the issues in edit summaries already. I suggest you read those. But I also have begun a topic on the article's Talk page with more detail here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia

As explained, your Additions (along with removing sourced material) seemed to contain your own reasoning and WP:Synthesis rather than information explicitly stated in the reliable sources. If you wish to make changes, you have to add reliable sources (that can be verified). Unsourced changes and additions are not acceptable and are against Wikipedia policy, even if you plan to add the sources later. Also, the best place to discuss this is there, not on my personal Talk page (link above). The topic there is under ("To the IP"). Also, accusations of bad faith and personal motives are not appropriate. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent addition Negrito

Hi Skllagyook! A new editor has added some text to Negrito based on a very interesting article about an ancient (Toalean) hunter-gatherer from Sulawesi. I don't want to revert it at once, even though it is totally misplaced, as it construes the Toalean individual as a "Negrito" when the paper doesn't do that, and even worse, the paper clearly shows that the genome of this specimen is quite distant from Negritos (represented only by the Mamanwa from Mindanao). I don't want to remove it now, because I simply don't know where we can place it (with all due corrections). In Peopling of Southeast Asia? But then we miss the important link with the peopling of Australia and Near Oceania. Do you think it makes sense to build a new article? It could cover similar material that was amassed in Australo-Melanesian before, but with less synth and more emphasis on the genetic complexity of Australia, Near Oceania and the SEA remnant populations without spurious unifying labels (Negrito, Australomelanesoid etc.).

I don't want to talk about the familiar combination of good editing skills, a good instinct for valuable sources, but a lot of CIR in interpreting and presenting the data; I'm sure you know what I mean. I've somewhat given up on this hunt (unless they go into edit warring), and rather focus on improving the affected pages. –Austronesier (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks for letting me know. As for creating a new article covering the peopling of Australo-Melanesia and/or Oceania, it seems like a pretty good idea I think, especially since (if I remember) all or most population genetic information was removed from the Australo-Melanesian page. Skllagyook (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi again! It's not that I have forgotten about this, but I have been doing some basic reading of the relevant studies about the topic. The latest edit-spree by the WCF sock IP in various pages has introduced many factual/terminological errors and misrepresentation of sources (which you have correctly pointed out in the recent discussion) for whatever reasons (I assume it is plainly CIR-related). Much of it can probably only resolved with a TNT-approach. So I think it is time to get a firm consensus about what the relevant sources actually say and what definitely should not be read into them.

For that purpose, I want to build small summaries about full genome-based studies (I am little interested in haplogroups because they only produce a tunnel-shaped view into the past) from the last 5–10 years covering East/Southeast Asia, Oceania and the Americas (and maybe other regions) in my user space and invite you (and later also other knowledgeable and interested editors in good standing – and without identity-related axes to grind) to collaborate in this mini-project.

The idea is to extract the basics: the groups that are covered in the study, the basic splits and admixture events that are modeled to explain the observed diversity, and other important findings like proposed ghost populations. Of course zero OR, especially nothing will be extracted from supplement data that is not elaborated on in the actual paper. The question of where to use these sources considering due weight is a different matter, but will certainly be easier if we get the basics straight. I have loads of projects to do IRL, so I will probably proceed in a slow pace. Let me know if you're interested, and I'll ping you when I start the page. –Austronesier (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: My appologies for the late response. I think should be able to participate some, though I will also be busy irl and my contributions will likely also proceed slowly. Feel free to ping me. Skllagyook (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

On a side note, I have decided to return to a zero-tolerance approach to WCF edits. Our recent attempts to engage with them on a professional level only has made them more confident to resort to edit-warring and new sock accounts. I know that you hate drama as much as I do, but we need to be stringent on this. –Austronesier (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: What does "WCF" stand for. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the initials. Skllagyook (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, sorry it's not per se obvious. I meant WorldCreaterFighter socks. –Austronesier (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Of course. I should have guessed you meant that. In that case, I think I would agree, as long as the evidence (that the user is a WCF sock) is reasonably strong (as it often is - or becomes after not too long - in my opinion with WCF socks), so one is not/does not seem to be assuming bad faith. WCF certainly is tenacious and persistent as I have seen (and often brazen in their problematic editing). Skllagyook (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course, a high confidence level about the abusive block evasion is a must; weakly founded accusations are all to often used as a cheap weapon in content disputes. "Tenacious, persistent, brazen", all this describes it well, and very often I would add: not well-informed. I have seen that whenever we have tried to fix things in individual articles, they would inevitably restore their distorted picture of archaeogenetic research in articles that are not "on our radar". You know, things like labeling everything traceable to Eastern Eurasia as "East Asian" even if it goes back way past Tianyuan. So in the future, I will immediately revert, look at the sources, and see what's worthy of inclusion the given context. –Austronesier (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

In spite of the proxy address of the IP editor, the current discussion in Talk:Negrito is a big deja vu and not really a surprise. I am still baffled about the fact that someone can do so much reading of valuable sources without getting a decent grasp of it. And this is what WP would look like if our community weren't alert (I'm really not into web sleuthing, but simple Google searches inevitable lead us to these pages). Sorry for my aimless short rant, but I am aware that you have been watching the "discussion" in the last days. –Austronesier (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on race and intelligence

Thanks for your revert at Charles Murray (political scientist). Just FYI, since you linked to the older RfC in your edit summary [17], probably best in the future to direct people to the more recent RfC here: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative:. I was having trouble finding the newer RfC. Thank you for linking it. Skllagyook (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Andamanese peoples

The source that you added here (to support the dispute claim) does not seem to exist. Could you please check it again? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton:. I see that now. I have replaced it with a ref that links to the source.Skllagyook (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Archaic admixture text in the Race and genetics

Hi, I noticed you removed the recent text I added to the Racial genetics page. I believe this is clearly relevant, and I'm at a loss as to why this wouldn't be relevant to the page. The sources are RS, and clearly talk about the relationship between African, European and Asian people, and the difference in DNA makeup relating to their archaic admixture. In any case, I've started [talk section on it here] , if you would like to contribute - cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Problem

With [18]. I would consider ANI but it’s too late in the day for me. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FYI Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

ANI Notice

{{subst:ANI-notice}}

There is a current conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents involving you. Thank you. GuinanTheListener (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Replacing non-RS content on Loretta Lynn

The content you replaced, concerning the family's claims to Cherokee heritage, were removed because a statement by their agent doesn't meet RS standards for Native identity. In order to establish heritage, the family would need to produce the names of known Cherokee ancestors and living Cherokee relatives. If they have done this, it should be easy to source. Unless and until they do this, they cannot be listed as descendants and belong in the self-identified category. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: Ok. Thanks for letting me know.Skllagyook (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Natufian culture

Hi Skllagyook, I noticed you reverted the edits and removals made by a disruptive IP Editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.20.81.154, I recommend you restore the page to before this person made any edits as they have ruined the flow of the entire article and taken out information. Can you revert the page to how it was during this date: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natufian_culture&oldid=1121891433 on the 20 November 2022. 102.217.80.26 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Quick request

HI, thanks for your additions to the Sudano-Sahelian architecture article! This was exactly the kind of background I was hoping could be added next. Quick follow-up request: there's a citation error that came from your edit here, where you cited a ref named "Neolithic" but didn't define it (maybe from a copy-paste that didn't contain the full ref). Could you fix this when you have a chance? (Or even just let me know what the source should be and I can add it myself if need be.) Thanks again, R Prazeres (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

User:R Prazeres It should be either ref 2 or 10 in the "Archaeology" section of the Dhar Tichitt article. Skllagyook (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Looks like it must be #2 (this). If I'm wrong, let me know. R Prazeres (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Roman People

I noticed you reverted a few genuine edits I made flagging them as WP:NOR. I am unsure where you are from and what your level of education is, but definitively your knowledge about Ancient Roman is very poor and you deleted actual information. Please make contributions only for subjects in your areas of expertise. Thanks JimmyScotland (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

User:JimmyScotland. Your addition was unsourced. That is why I removed it. Reliable sources (WP:RS) are required here per Wikipedia policy. And, if you read WP:NOR, you will see that it is against Wikipedia policy to add statements that are not explicitly made in/supported by a reliable source (with a refs/refs). Also, it is not required here in Wikipedia to have any specific professional expertise to edit in a given are (what are required are reliable sources), and please be WP:CIVIL and refrain from personal and derisive comments. They are not appropriate. Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Meroitic in kerma

Meroitic and the formation of Meroitic have allot to do with kerma, whatever influences it has on it (meroitic) actual researchers into Meroitic have a right to be heard as claude riley isn't thee only researcher,lets restore the edits—  by Jedorton (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Ĕ

User:Jedorton The problem is that the sources you added don't actually seem to discuss Kerma explicitly. So adding them would probably be WP:OR. Some researchers believe Meroitic descends from the language of Kerma (and state that), and one might think that seems likely, but that would have to be explicit in the source to support adding it to the Kerma page. If the source doesn't make the connection it would be OR. So, while the content is appropriate on the Meroitic language page (because it explicitly discusses the Meroitic language), it doesn't seem to be appropriate for the Kerma page. Skllagyook (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

User: Skllagyook But the historical accounts suggests Meroitic was spoken during the Egyptian middle kingdom in Kush/Kerma, It could help readers in understanding the evolution of Meroitic,(Egyptian rulers recognized the 1st Cataract of the Nile as the natural southern border of ancient Egypt. — Bianchi, Robert Steven. Daily Life of the Nubians. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 2004. p.6.) I have no care what Meroitic language family belongs to but both side of the debate deserve to be heard (and their are credible researchers on both side, and kerma especially is important to the formation of Meroitic Jedorton (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Jedorton Adding a statement based on the combination of two or more sources (including in part on one's own knowledge or beliefs) is WP:Synthesis (a form of OR) and is against Wikipedia policy. The connection (to the topic of the article) really has to be explicitly made in the source you're using. Otherwise the material violates WP:NOR. The other sources arguing that the Kerma language was Afro-Asiatic are included on the page because they explicitly discuss the Kerma language. Skllagyook (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

User: Skllagyook We have Meroitic words in the Egyptian book of the dead, furthermore recent Geneteic studies on pre kermans show a predominance of Eurasian ancestry (just like some early pastoralist in Kenya) and the strong presence of E1b1b-v32 in some Darfurians indicating a Cushitic presence in Upper Nubia very early on (in fact we know the A-Group migrated south in waves) Meroitic shares its syntax with other Cushitic languages, I'll even give you credit you know the guidelines of wiki better then I do (and rules) but the truth is the Truth.By [[User:Jedorton|Jedorton]talk 3 june 2023 (UTC)

User:Jedorton Basing an edit to the Kerma language section on any of that (assuming any of it is true/however much may be true) would be a clear case of WP:Synthesis. (As far as I know, there is one Kerma-period genetic sample in one study that is from Kadruka, in northern Nubia, significantly north of Kerma itself, and it shows an approximately even mixture of Eurasian and African ancestry - like the early Kenyan pastoralists. A single low coverage sample may not be typical of a population, and even if it is, does not necessarily prove anything about linguistic affinity: groups mix, languages can be adopted or imposed, etc. There might even be the possibility of a hybrid language or more than one language at Kerma - but that is also not, as of yet, supported by a reliable source.). Anyway, according to Wikipedia policy, we edit based on what the sources explicitly state, not on what we personally think is the truth (see WP:TRUTH). Skllagyook (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

User: Skllagyook You have point it's just that research into Meroitic is so poor that one feels the need to rely on genetics more often hopefully the field gets better. comment added by Jedorton (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Medical genetics of Jews

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Medical genetics of Jews, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Broken quote

Hi. Your series of edits here have taken a direct Behar quote and removed the final quotation mark but not the initial one, while removing the attribution, meaning it is now unattributed overly close paraphrasing. I'm sure this was in error, but I'm not quite sure what you were attempting, so it may be best if you resolve it yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: It was an error. Somehow I didn't notice it was a quote. Thank you for pointing that out. The original quote seems to be:

"This inference is consistent with historical records describing the dispersion of the people of Israel throughout the old world."

Page 3, here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44657170_The_genome-wide_structure_of_the_Jewish_people

But this no longer seems to be overly close to the current wording. I will remove the opening quotation, and nevertheless change the wording a bit more. Skllagyook (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)