Causteau

/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4

Chad

Thanks for the link, Did they sample Chadian people? Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DE

Sorry for any misunderstanding but it was just a wording question. Here it is without the ref in:

More recently, one example of DE* was found amongst the Nalu in Guinea Bissau (1/17), and 2 individuals were found in Tibet (2/594).

You have:

More recently, one example of DE* was found amongst the Nalu in Guinea Bissau (1/17), and among 2 individuals in Tibet (2/594).

Yours just has an English problem when you read it through. But I see what you mean about mine also. I presume it should be...

More recently, one example of DE* was found amongst the Nalu in Guinea Bissau (1/17), and 2 examples of DE* were found in Tibet (2/594).

Correct? Please feel free to change it at least from my point of view.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right. My typo.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I am right, and you misread? I say Chandrasekar believe E is much younger than D, in contrast to Karafet. Maybe the wording is confusing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, I say Shi et al believe E is much younger than D, in contrast to Karafet, not Chandrasekar. Sorry for the confusion, but in the final analysis, what is wrong with that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the only reason that Shi et al. (2008) mention that haplogroup E is younger than haplogroup D, is because they ALSO say D is close in age to DE (in conrast to E)? So isn't it important to their meaning to mention that they think that DE-D < DE-E ??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Chandrasekar et al. (2007)

I have to apologize a bit. I deleted, but I did not mean to say that do not see the point. The thing is that I find the Asia/Africa argument concerning DE pretty finely balanced in the literature right now, and this article is right on an extreme, and if anything it is the extreme most distant from the consensus. And yet it was being given the spotlight and no qualification. Putting in that big quote without qualification unbalanced things. I don't see a problem with mentioning it, but can it not be portrayed more clearly as a "position" so to speak?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Causteau, you're reaction is not very constructive, so let's put it this way: I honestly do not believe what I deleted was important material, nor appropriate for an article about DE. Most of it was not even about DE. In that long quotation, DE was being connected to a whole lot of other debates as an aside, and for no particular reason which was explained within the quote. Nevertheless the way the quote was inserted implied that it was explaining some important debating point that is out there in the literature. I have said the paper I see no reason not to mention that paper at all, but it should not be in that way, which confuses and clutters the wiki article and if taken seriously implies that all debate about the origins of DE is based on what happened with other haplogroups, which is nonsense. Please try to take the good faith concerns of others into account instead of posting tirades about any disagreement. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, my first effort at a new version has not please you, but I think all the points you mention can be accommodated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

E-V13 and Neolithic

Yes much more referencing can be done on this subject of the Neolithic, and I have worked on it. Problem is that I eventually found so much that it is more than can be put in a wiki article, and it will imply reviewing several sections of the wiki article. Soon you shall see a very complete review of such material being published which should make it easier to track down bits and pieces like this, not only for me but for you and other editors. Watch for next edition of http://www.jogg.info; hoped for in coming weeks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope you like it: http://www.jogg.info/42/files/Lancaster.pdf --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and constructive words and your reading advice which I intend to follow up. Please note that the URL will change because the new edition is being tidied up: http://www.jogg.info/51/files/Lancaster.pdf I will go through your points...

1. Bernal. I think it is clear his theories were never orthodox. I think the new information you present makes not stronger case than existed already, and indeed, some it is itself debatable. Of course this far back all language discussion gets difficult.

2. Horn of Africa. I tend to agree, and I've tried to give the correct flavor. Linguists have a wider range of opinions, so to compare to genetics, where there are arguably not enough opinions, it looks different: one looking exact and one looking very messy. I think I said something like "or near" and also in my "scenario 3" which tries to describe what I thought least controversial, I've said that something to the effect of Afroasiatic originating somewhere approximating the "biaxial corridor".

3. Greenberg. I am aware the story is bigger but of course could not even cover what little I know. I thank you very much for your references.

4. Keita and Bernal. Of course it was a review and I could not question everything. As it is, I think the article has become quite long. So I appreciate that many points recited are debatable and hopefully readers will be lead to read the original materials.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Malyarchuk

Thanks for your comment. If your concern was about the M1 being "sub saharan" then the edits you have been making do not seem to be the right ones. You've been consistently removing reference to it being "African". Maybe the part of the citation which talks about "African" haplotypes in a general sense should just be removed from this sub Saharan section, with the "West African" ones being mentioned. I am presuming they see those as West African in the sense of sub Saharan West Africa?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I have not been "consistently removing reference to [M1] being "African"". That is completely false. What I have been doing is removing M1 from the section of the article labeled Sub-Saharan admixture, which you ironically added it to when Malyarchuk et al. (2008) do not describe M1 as Sub-Saharan mtDNA or as having come from Sub-Saharan Africa. Again, as shown in the quotes cited earlier, the study clearly states that M1 is North African mtDNA that was introduced from Northwest Africa -- where, incidentally, it is most prevalent & its oldest sub-clades are found -- not "Sub-Saharan West Africa" (where it is absent), as you have somehow concluded. Causteau (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. You've been removing reference to M1 being African. That you have a subtle argument about this not being appropriate to mention in a section specifically about sub-Saharan Africa should have been the basis of your edits and your explanations. Because you did not make it clear, you got the result you got. Are you trying to cause edit wars or what?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. To place haplogroup M1 in a section labeled Sub-Saharan admixture obviously suggests that it specifically constitutes Sub-Saharan admixture, not some generic "African" admixture. This is precisely why Wapondaponda has been consistently reverting the article i.e. he wants readers to believe that the presence of M1 in Europe constitutes Sub-Saharan admixture, not North African admixture. Again, my edits were me removing M1 from the section of the article labeled "Sub-Saharan admixture" because the Malyarchuk et al. (2008) study that the passage in question is sourced to does not describe M1 as Sub-Saharan mtDNA or as having come from Sub-Saharan Africa. The latter is something Wapondaponda fabricated, as is his wont, and you yourself have subsequently added to the article. As shown in the quotes cited earlier, the study actually states that M1 is North African mtDNA that was introduced to Iberia from Northwest Africa (and from Iberia to Eastern Europe):

"In Northwest Africa, haplogroup M1 has been found at high frequencies in Algerians, and at lower frequency in Tunisians, Mozabites and Morroccan Arabs, showing a slight east – west cline. Haplogroup M1 is rare in Iberia, but the presence of North African M1 mtDNA in the Basques remains that pre-date the Muslim invasion (eighth century) points to the prehistoric arrival of M1 lineages in Iberia."

"In this respect, a possible explanation for presence of African mtDNA lineages in gene pools of eastern Europeans is that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area of southwestern Europe might be the source of late glacial expansions leading to dispersal of some Northwest African mtDNAs in central and northeastern parts of Europe. It has been previously shown that ancient Iberian carriers of West Eurasian haplogroups H1, H3, V, U5b1b and U8a have participated in demographic reexpansion to repopulate Central Europe in the last interglacial periods (10 000 – 15 000 years ago).39 – 41 According to the data obtained in our study, it seems probable that Northwest Africans also contributed their mtDNA lineages to ancient Iberians, and further, via their gene pool migrations, to Europeans."

This is something I already made clear in my edit summaries:

• edit summary #1: "[...] Malyarchuk et al. (2008) do not identify M1 as sub-Saharan (far from it), so it should not be cited under Sub-Saharan admixture"
• edit summary #2: "[...] Gonzalez also make it clear that M1 is NOT of Sub-Saharan origin"
• edit summary #3: "[...] put M1 Malyarchuk info in proper section"

Also note that my penultimate edit (which Wapondaponda naturally reverted) was actually me adding the M1 info to its proper North African admixture section. This is something that I already suggested to you on your talk page that we should do (viz. "Since Malyarchuk do not indicate that M1 is Sub-Saharan but rather North African, it should not be featured in the Sub-Saharan admixture section of the article. If anything, it should be listed in the North African admixture section."). Perhaps you overlooked this too? Whatever the case, the article may be locked now, but when it is unlocked, rest assured that this as well will be corrected. Causteau (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I do get the point now. What frustrates me is how hard it is to track it back in your edits. Why remove sentences which refer to M1 as African if your point, as you now describe it, would suggest that your concern is more with the whole principle of having these generic African groups in a section of sub-Saharan Africa? You did not give consistent edit explanations and you could more logically just have removed all reference to generically African clades. Do you understand how hard you you make it to see your point?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yemen

Yes I find that site very interesting and more important I think that it is much closer to the truth (about the origins of Human-kind) then all articles that state that humans come out of Africa, maybe we should start a Wikipedia article on evidence that contradicts the out-of-Africa hypothesis. Do you have a name (for the article)? De The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC) other wise known as Sophian P.S you are a genius if you can find a bigger sockpuppet maker then Muntuwandi :) I always knew he was no good because he said something like you can always create Brothers of faith (Sockpuppets) . Sincerely The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Article name and a few questions

A good name for the article would be: Contradictions to the hypothesis of recent African origin of modern humans do you have a better name? And seriously is there any true evidence that L is the oldest mtDNA haplogroup why couldn’t there been a mtDNA haplogroup in-between N, M and L that is the founder of all 3? (Hypothetical haplogroup LMN http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/45 ) has there ever been a modern sequence that could not be assigned to haplogroups (L, M, or N)? I am not trying to prove a point I am simply asking a few questions I am not planing to put the above information into the article I am planning to put the information from this into the article. The only that is stopping me from making the article now is possibly copyright laws (what are the copyright laws for the Yeman theory article)? Best regards The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Causteau, this is not the first time that I (or others) have to say that your editing and etiquette are seriously out of line. Please understand, in case it is just your emotions running you, that I honestly have no pleasure from saying this at all. I do not like this. If you have any decency, please slow down and think about what you are trying to achieve. Your recent edits and your talkpage entries can only be read as cynical disruptive editing. You've done this in phases before, but sorry this is way beyond just a habit of having bad days. Other people who work like this end up getting blocked. Examples such as specially rewriting a quote about a 2005 article to insist that it is up to date today, and insisting upon using old haplogroup names serve what purpose?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Visitors to my page: The above is an attempt by a user by the name of Andrew Lancaster to cast aspersions on my editing. Most of it is based on distortion and falsehoods, and deliberately so, for Andrew and I are indeed presently involved in intense talk page discussions. However, Andrew has thus far been completely unable to prove his point in any of his posts through the force of logic. He therefore has to resort to posting untruths on my talk page (as he has just done above), a place to which he then naturally directs readers to prejudice them against me & my edits. Andrew also typically likes to do these things when he feels I am far away from my computer and therefore unable to respond in a timely manner. The funny part is that his description above reads exactly like one is spying on another writing their autobiography. Oh, and you can get the actual truth on the last point about the '2005 article' here. Causteau (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Very constructive. Several times today you have accused me of acting angelically in order to cast aspersions on you. Weird. Here's an idea: why not also act decently? Why not stop casting aspersions on yourself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And that, folks, is Andrew trying to save face when he realizes that his little plot has been foiled. Causteau (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this be the plot to keep Wikipedia neutral? Why on earth would I develop a plot to make you look silly? I am not interested. We are only in conflict because of your insistence on trying to make hay of the Wapondaponda blocking. You are trying to give the articles the opposite POV to his. That's the only conflict I care about. That's the only plot I am in. Please stop making vague accusations. Make accusations when you have a real case only, or else you just look silly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And here is where Andrew attempts to rationalize his inability at making the mud he is slinging stick (while of course simultaneously trying to maintain a facade of "neutrality") by invoking the name of an inveterate blocked user, a user whose edits more often than not actually jibed with his own. How very ironic, but oddly appropriate. Causteau (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you always gloatingly dwell on accusations that you've foiled me or that I've failed, or that I'm impotent, or just annoyed for not getting what I want? You always write like this is a gang war with winners and losers and territory. I am not in this game. Go play somewhere else.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, last I checked, this was my talk page. That's like a grouchy old houseguest telling his host to scram. Causteau (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Possession words again. This is not your turf. This is Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. For a minute there, I was under the impression that only I could access my preferences, emails, etc. Oh well. Guess one learns something new everyday. Mi casa es su casa and all. Causteau (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind what is in your e-mails and preferences. We were talking about articles in Wikipedia like E1b1b and DE, or at least I was. People mind what you put in those. Anyway no es su casa, y no es mi casa.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I doublesee. Cause I could've sworn I said "last I checked, this was my talk page", not "last I checked, this was my E1b1b talk page". Oh well. Causteau (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Forget it. We are talking past each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Causteau (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In your posts on talk pages, the first sentences, and the bulk of all words, are purely ad hominem. You should stop that. It would save a lot of space. This stuff is not relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And that, once again folks, is Andrew attempting to cast aspersions on my editing because he realizes I have just posted a linkback from an administrator's page to this very section of my talk page where I've pretty much spelled out his modus operandi. So very transparent. Apparently, the administrator in question's sensible recommendation to back off hasn't sunken in yet. Causteau (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No it was real advice from me to you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be Andrew yet again trying to save face when exposed. After all, when one gives advice, one must first be in a position to be giving advice. Causteau (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any possible thing I could do in order for you to start assuming good faith? It appears to be impossible to have any rational discussion with you. How long will you stay in this mode on this occasion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And that's Andrew attempting to do three things at once: convince readers that I 1) don't actually have any legitimate reason to be weary of his edits (a notion which my comments and links above of course belie), 2) haven't made any attempts at having "any rational discussion" with him (a charge which the protracted discussion on the E1b1b talk page regarding one particular study seriously undermines), and 3) regularly behave in this way (a charge that is also rendered ironic by a visit to said page and a look again at his own behavior). Like I've written, even when he is ostensibly just trying to "resolve" an issue, Andrew is actually doing just the opposite of that i.e. leveling those same 'ol trusty hollow charges, couched in that "vague" language that he likes so much. Causteau (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

No I would not mind it one bit if you moved it to your user page I mean they are your user and talk page :) sorry for not putting it on your user page in the first place (everyone else does:). De The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Causteau (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Be careful, I'm afraid that on your way to fight against the sock's club, you deleted my work that is based on an original and valuable edition by user Sugaar. --Maulucioni (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for pointing that out. I must've overlooked your edit when I reverted back to the last good version before the sock. Causteau (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sub Saharan admixture artical

Causteau, welcome back from where ever you've been. I think you should be careful about doing massive reverts which remove many different edits in one sweep. Your own edit summaries show that these are apparently just done in a rush to get rid of very specific things you do not like. I have mentioned the cases on Afro-Asiatic and Proto-Afro-Asiatic on the talkpage to the latter article. Concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sub-Saharan_DNA_admixture_in_Europe&diff=302688317&oldid=302646135 this one on Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe I have reverted the part which you do not explain in your edit summary. It was basically a restructuring of the opening section in order to give some definitions of terms in a clear format. By all means edit it, but I'd suggest it deserves more than a simple batch revert. Concerning the reason you gave for the revert, I've left E1b1b out again, but I would ask you to please explain what is wrong with the material you moved. I've defined the question most recently here. You really should answer good faith questions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything has been explained over and over on that article's talk page to you, not just by me, but by several other editors. So please do not talk to me about "good faith" when you have repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of it by ignoring the already established consensus and categorically refusing to produce quotes supporting your absurd claim that researchers conclude that E1b1b -- which is probably the third most frequent haplogroup in Europe, and represents a full 50% of male lineages in Southern Greece according to Zalloua et al. (2008) -- represents Sub-Saharan admixture! Your edits are truly baffling in their audacity. Causteau (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you never explained anything, but I believe the wording I have proposed addresses even the most extreme arguments you and others have proposed. The fact is that since I have proposed it you have never even pretended to address this wording. You and Small Victory just keep repeating the old arguments which you applied to wording such as Wapondaponda wanted. Wapondaponda does not like my proposal either! Can I PLEASE ask you look at the real wording that I am really proposing, and make real responses to that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This edit summary seems to be deliberately misleading. You have not just including some words about slavery. You've deleted all attempt to have a structured and sourced introduction and reinserted comments which you have no source for. Please familiarize yourself with this discussion I had with User:Small Victory. This was before the changes you are now reverting. My concerns are pretty clearly stated:

You have no sources for the following wording:

• "Pre-historic African lineages and East African regions like the Horn are generally excluded from this definition, since all humans share an ancestral African genetic component" Who says they are excluded from the definition? Who says that there is a definition in any source at all?
• "the genetic relationship between Horn Africans and Western Eurasians appears to represent a common Caucasoid substratum". This wording is stronger than the source you cite, but it is also a wording which implies that there is a mainstream consensus. That is being contested, and so for such a statement you need a review article saying that there is a mainstream consensus.
• "Sub-Saharan African is best understood as a synonym for the term Negroid" This wording was strengthened by removing the "For some" which User:slrubenstein added. The change implies that you have evidence, for example a review article, that this is a mainstream consensus.

Awaiting your edits or explanations.

If you have answers to these requests for sources, shouldn't you say something before jumping with big reverts?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not even my edit you've pasted above! LOL Here's my edit; nice try misrepresenting what I did actually include in the article. I'm starting to get a clearer picture of you with each passing day, Andrew, and it ain't pretty. Causteau (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what you are talking about. I just clicked on your link and my link and they are the same. Can you please address the sourcing concerns for materials you've re-inserted that had been previously discussed on the talkpage?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. What you have copied and pasted above to my talk page is not the same as my edit. Anyone can verify this for themselves. I strongly suggest you quit misrepresenting what I have written; you only do yourself a disservice, not me. Causteau (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you not just reinsert these words? "Pre-historic African lineages and African regions like the Horn of Africa are generally excluded from the term "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture" Are these not amongst the words raised as not having a source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's all you meant, then why the hell did you post all of that other rubbish on my talk page and insist that those were my comments when they're not? Causteau (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Because you demanded more explanation. Let me re-explain the two requests:

1. Please make sure your edit summaries are not misleading especially when you are doing major surgery in an area of text you know has been under discussion.

2. Please participate constructively in talkpage discussion when you think you have answers to outstanding questions in on-going discussion. Both the E1b1b paragraph which you deleted, and the unsourced wording you reinserted are the subject of open discussions on the talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Misleading". Ha! That's rich coming from someone who cannot even properly characterize another person's edits. As I've told you in the past, try following your own advice before having the gall to share it with others. Causteau (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, OK, I am evil incarnate, but may I look forward to you proving your point by making proper edit summaries and participating constructively in good faith talk page discussion where appropriate????? Satan and I are worried about the quality of some of these articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, "evil" or no "evil" (your words, not mine), the article first has to exist in order for me to address it. By the way, good nomination; I only just got wind of it. If ever an article were unsalvageable, it was most certainly that POV fork. Causteau (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you would have noted it. Of course some of the points above are likely to spill over into other articles. The assumption that there is a sub Saharan race which is clearly and non-controversially defined is likely to continue to be contentious in the article about the Genetics of Europe for example, which is an article I've come to think could be a good one eventually (I have doubts, but it seems some people like Hxseek have made worthy efforts). Whatever people try to insert, I think it is worth the effort of being careful about "too easy" unsourced remarks such as the ones I mentioned to Small Victory, mentioned above. By the way, this might sound silly, but I think SOPHIAN may take advice from you, and honestly I think it is in your interest as much as anyone's to try to improve his editing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To be sure, Genetic History of Europe is a high profile article that is well known to all Wikipedians. Any attempts at pushing POV will be glaringly obvious (as was the case before with the POV fork, actually). Causteau (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It continues to suffer from some problems, especially from people browsing by and wanting to add their favorite bit of information (R1a in Paris for example, or R1b in Cantabria). It has also had "sub Saharan" controversy problems for extended periods of time. One special sensitivity I have noticed is that the article needs a relatively clear but complex structure in order to make sense. Many of the editors here have paid too little attention to trying to stick to one structure, leading to redundant sections, time and again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The structure doesn't strike me as being as problematic as it used to be in the past. Editors such as Hxseek seem to have put in some quality work that has resolved a lot of those particular problems. However, I'm with you on the "R1b in Paris"-type additions. That kind of geographical micro-detailing is not particularly helpful (what next? R1b in shopping malls?). It seems to be more due to newbie overenthusiasm than to anything nefarious, though. Causteau (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been involved in that restructuring work with Hxseek, and it has been tough to keep it together. One recent edit war has involved SOPHIAN putting in a multilevel set of sections about the East versus West divide, which is obviously his personal interest. This was all redundant, because the current structure first gives a brief summary of ALL clines, including the East West one, and then goes through chronologically. Another option is that it could go through every cline in detail (because for each cline there might be multiple theories about how it came about). (This has also been discussed on the talkpage. It would be a big job, but it might be better.) But you can not have both. As far as I know, this edit war is still not over. SOPHIAN has been a bit quiet in the last few days, but I am not sure at all whether he feels a need to listen to other peoples' concerns on matters like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this East/West issue on the article. I'll have to take a look. Causteau (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how consistent you are. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&diff=prev&oldid=302936539 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Afro-Asiatic and genetics

I am not sure it is correct to transfer consensus about one article to consensus about another. Eventually the Proto-Afro-Asiatic article should be more specialized in the area of questions about origins, and no one has raised a concerning on that article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The discussion was about whether genetics info belonged on the linguistics articles at all, and the other editors like me obviously made it clear it doesn't. Further, as Taivo has already pointed out, linguistic conclusions aren't reached by consulting genetic data; they are reached by strictly consulting linguistic data, so your argument is irrelevant. Causteau (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not see anyone say that this was about a point of principle applying to other articles. Anyway, I have opened discussion there, and I just wanted to flag my question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble seeing the good faith when I compare these two posts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afro-Asiatic_languages&diff=302754206&oldid=302754160 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afro-Asiatic_languages&diff=302913313&oldid=302912464 When pressed you originally accepted that if Bender treats Bernal's theories seriously then we have to, and claimed you just wanted to confirm he really did. So why would you then try to get another editor worked up about it and not mention the point to which we had already brought discussion a day before? We all have a point of view, and I honestly have no problem with your doubts about Bernal. This is a simple issue of Wikipedia neutrality policy. We can cage Bernal's theories with qualifiers, but we should not delete all mention of him if he is notable and relevant in this field. The problem with your little note to Azalea Pump is that your previous remarks show that you realize this (as long as I was telling the truth about the Bender article), so you are apparently deliberately trying to encourage someone else to go against Wikipedia neutrality in favour of your POV. At least I can see no other explanation yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To all readers; please have a look at the Afro-Asiatic article's talk page for my response to this utter misrepresentation of what I wrote & edited. Also, while you're at it, have a look at the other editors' responses to get the whole picture of what is really going on. It's yet again (and quite predictably) completely unlike what Andrew attempts to portray above. Sickeningly so, actually. Causteau (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice non-neutral language Causteau. Perhaps you can post a note to let everyone know when you actually post something explaining the apparent conflict between your two explanations about what your position is. You have not done so yet. You just wrote a personal attack.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's Andrew attempting to salvage something out of what has been a pretty sorry day for him at the "office". Fact is, there are no less than three editors telling him to stop pushing POV on the Afro-Asiatic article's talk page, but yet here he is trying to make it seem like it's all mean old Causteau's fault :-( Again, do have a look at said talk page and all of the other editors' responses including mine to see what is really going on. You certainly won't get it from him. Causteau (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no debate about my POV, as I have no POV about Bernal and no one including you as accused me of one? I started restructuring this whole section (a job everyone seems to admit was needed - Azalea Pomp wrote me a thank you note) and in doing this, I mentioned Bernal. (He comes up if you read about this subject.) You want this one person Bernal not mentioned in the article, and we had a discussion about whether he was fringe or not, according to Wikipedia policies. You accepted that if someone like Bender takes him seriously he is not fringe, so we have a resolution as soon as you find the article? The other two editors apparently want all non-linguistic discussion of grammar or phonology removed. That this overlaps with your interest in getting rid of Bernal is not really a situation where 3 editors are accusing a third of pushing POV? Am I getting any of this wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The "thank you note" that Andrew mentions Azalea Pomp wrote him was from at least a day ago -- well before Andrew started this latest absurd attempt to force the fringe, tiny minority linguistic speculations of the historian Martian Bernal into the Afro-Asiatic & Proto-Afro-Asiatic articles. I won't even bother with the rest. It's a joke. Again, have a look at the AA article's talk page and see for yourself whether or not he is being chided for his edits by three separate editors. You certainly won't get the truth from him. Causteau (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning discussion here on your talkpage, not article related in a direct way, you said I am being criticized for POV pushing. Who criticized me for this? Has anyone said that my rather large series of edits had some particular slant towards Bernal? As far as I can see, the basic new structure is accepted and there are different people who want different things removed. Bernal (predictably) is a subject that several people want out, but based on quite different lines of reasoning, all of which seem to be against Wikipedia policy. That's the argument, surely? Why try to make everything personal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your new remark that "it would appear that Andrew doesn't even have full access to Bender's book as he had claimed!" appears to be pure unjustified personal attack. Please explain how you come to write something like this and what you are aiming at.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to remind you, I had actually told you already that I got the article from Cologne. You might even notice a relevant thank you in my JOGG review article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And that is Andrew attempting to create the impression that he has been "personally attacked" by quoting a comment of mine completely out of context. But as with everything else above, a simple visit to the Afro-Asiatic article's talk page instantly dispells his distortions. Such transparent methods *smh* Causteau (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about the editing should indeed be on the article talkpage. I write to you here because you as part of an editing discussion you have now twice accused me of lieing, first about what the Bender article says, and now about whether I have a copy. This is despite the fact that you openly admit not having a copy to compare to. Am I wrong? Please explain what reason you would have to make these accusations apart from trying to win an argument in the wrong way, and get mention of Bernal forbidden.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Again folks, that's Andrew with his ever-familiar strawman arguments. Do visit the article's talk page for the lowdown. You won't get it from him (notice it's only me asking readers to visit the article's talk page; there's a good reason for that! LOL). Causteau (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A clear question demands a clear answer: did you accuse me of lieing about an article you admit not having read? Yes or no?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And the answer to that, folks, can likewise be found on the article's talk page. There, one actually has the benefit of seeing for oneself the discussion in its entirety rather than through some self-serving, revisionist filter. Causteau (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am asking you Causteau, here on your talk page, because this is not article related. I see no answer on the article talkpage either. Please make the basis of your accusation clear. Why accuse someone of lieing if you never read the article yourself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And the answer to that, folks, can likewise be found on the article's talk page. There, one actually has the benefit of seeing for oneself the discussion in its entirety rather than through some self-serving, revisionist filter. Causteau (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So often, your answer to simple and direct questions is a stream of personal abuse making a vague claim that the answer has already been posted elsewhere. Communication is difficult Causteau, and if your positions were simple and clear no one would need to ask you to explain them. Please accept that people will sometimes need to ask clarification for something, even in cases where you really have tried to answer before. So once again, can you please get this distraction out of the way so we can talk about the article? Are you claiming I lied or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And the answer to that, folks, can likewise be found on the article's talk page. There, one actually has the benefit of seeing for oneself the discussion in its entirety rather than through some self-serving, revisionist filter. Causteau (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nilo-Saharan

Perhaps you would like to chime in on the Nilo-Saharan talk page: Talk:Nilo-Saharan languages. These language and languages pages need work on their info box as Nilo-Saharan is not accepted by many linguists. Azalea pomp (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

PressTV article is being synthesized

Hello. Just found your name on PRESS TV article's discussion board. I wanted to invite you to visit the discussion page and see what I wrote about Hassan Abdulrahman under "synthesis" and about a false name extensively being quoted. This guy does not exist (Khosro Ehktiari) and his comments are being referenced as authentic. This is sad... I thought a experienced wikipedian like you could help prevent such deviations. thanks. 94.182.162.50 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Sayiid Maxamed Abdule Xasan.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sayiid Maxamed Abdule Xasan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 09:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

File:800px-Writing systems worldwide1.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:800px-Writing systems worldwide1.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Essam Sharaf (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)

Please review and comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Your help requested

Haplogroup E-V38, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

File:800px-Writing systems worldwide1.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:800px-Writing systems worldwide1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)