Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jōmon period, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies ( talk) 02:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk)
02:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)212.195.123.143 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
/info/en/?search=J%C5%8Dmon_period#Genetics article contains misleading and inaccurate information in the sense that it takes more or less valid information (in the sense that Jomon people do have in certain limits genetic ties with Southeast people but that is not where the haplogroup comes from originally, see /info/en/?search=Haplogroup_D-M55 , it comes from Central Asia) but the 1999 dated reference http://www.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/powell_rose.htm linked to the sentence "Jomon shows closest genetic relationship to Southeast Asians rather than western Eurasian people" in the wikipedia article for Jomon Period has absolutely no relation with any DNA testing whatsoever, since it is a purely osteological review of the Kennewick Man (a paleoamerican) and much worse said study made several crucial mistakes concerning the ties of various people with said Kennewick Man (this infamous osteological study claimed erroneously the Kennewick Man had affilitation solely to Southeast Asians and Polynesians and they also denied ties with "American Indians"), yet everything is explained in detail on the wikipedia Kennewick Man page, with multiple refs, which clearly state that the DNA testing from 2012-2015 shows a GENETIC relation between Kennewick Man and Native American People more than anyone else...and that previous osteological "studies" boasting outrageous theories were not accurate at all and are now debunked officially. There is no Jomon DNA testing nor Jomon DNA data being compared in this study, once again it suffices to read that infamous paper instead of speculating on it, it is based on craniometric variance , not DNA samples . Logically, such a reference in the Genetics section of the wikipedia article (speaking of the Jomon Period article) should be deleted or at least the context of said study should be explained to not mislead the readers, which is what I did on multiple occasions. It is VERY common on wikipedia that editors write personal opinions or personal research supposedly based on a reference that has little or nothing to do, doesn't contain the informatio in question or worse sometimes states the opposite (as a pertinent example, see my edit on wikipedia page of D3O, where I corrected an editor who claimed there were only "traces" of a product when in fact the US patent referenced in the article mentioned an ideal proportion of 10-35% ...). Every time, I did explain my edits in the edit summary section of the Jomon Period article, yet it was tagged as "disruptive editing" by moderator Drmies and the latter abusively banned me, deleting also in the process methodically and hastily all my edits (without once reading my numerous explanations, simply ignoring them ) . I am literally tired of being obliged to explain over and over the same thing , anyone reading my talk page and my edit summaries can see this for themselves. Reasons were given, but the moderator Drmies outrageoulsy claimed that I "should have talked about it on the talk page". 212.195.123.143 ( talk) 04:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The problem with edit warring is even if you are right you are wrong. Please feel free, once your block has expired, to discuss the merits of your preferred version on the article talk page and without further revert warring. If you instead choose to resume edit warring, you may find yourself blocked for longer. DrMies is an ArbCom-- you could learn a lot from him and should probably heed his advice. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 06:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jōmon period, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies ( talk) 02:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk)
02:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)212.195.123.143 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
/info/en/?search=J%C5%8Dmon_period#Genetics article contains misleading and inaccurate information in the sense that it takes more or less valid information (in the sense that Jomon people do have in certain limits genetic ties with Southeast people but that is not where the haplogroup comes from originally, see /info/en/?search=Haplogroup_D-M55 , it comes from Central Asia) but the 1999 dated reference http://www.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/powell_rose.htm linked to the sentence "Jomon shows closest genetic relationship to Southeast Asians rather than western Eurasian people" in the wikipedia article for Jomon Period has absolutely no relation with any DNA testing whatsoever, since it is a purely osteological review of the Kennewick Man (a paleoamerican) and much worse said study made several crucial mistakes concerning the ties of various people with said Kennewick Man (this infamous osteological study claimed erroneously the Kennewick Man had affilitation solely to Southeast Asians and Polynesians and they also denied ties with "American Indians"), yet everything is explained in detail on the wikipedia Kennewick Man page, with multiple refs, which clearly state that the DNA testing from 2012-2015 shows a GENETIC relation between Kennewick Man and Native American People more than anyone else...and that previous osteological "studies" boasting outrageous theories were not accurate at all and are now debunked officially. There is no Jomon DNA testing nor Jomon DNA data being compared in this study, once again it suffices to read that infamous paper instead of speculating on it, it is based on craniometric variance , not DNA samples . Logically, such a reference in the Genetics section of the wikipedia article (speaking of the Jomon Period article) should be deleted or at least the context of said study should be explained to not mislead the readers, which is what I did on multiple occasions. It is VERY common on wikipedia that editors write personal opinions or personal research supposedly based on a reference that has little or nothing to do, doesn't contain the informatio in question or worse sometimes states the opposite (as a pertinent example, see my edit on wikipedia page of D3O, where I corrected an editor who claimed there were only "traces" of a product when in fact the US patent referenced in the article mentioned an ideal proportion of 10-35% ...). Every time, I did explain my edits in the edit summary section of the Jomon Period article, yet it was tagged as "disruptive editing" by moderator Drmies and the latter abusively banned me, deleting also in the process methodically and hastily all my edits (without once reading my numerous explanations, simply ignoring them ) . I am literally tired of being obliged to explain over and over the same thing , anyone reading my talk page and my edit summaries can see this for themselves. Reasons were given, but the moderator Drmies outrageoulsy claimed that I "should have talked about it on the talk page". 212.195.123.143 ( talk) 04:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The problem with edit warring is even if you are right you are wrong. Please feel free, once your block has expired, to discuss the merits of your preferred version on the article talk page and without further revert warring. If you instead choose to resume edit warring, you may find yourself blocked for longer. DrMies is an ArbCom-- you could learn a lot from him and should probably heed his advice. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 06:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |