Liltender
Liltender, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Liltender! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 15:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for April 17 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hungarian–Czechoslovak War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kassa (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) 14:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution edit
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Alternating current into Austria-Hungary. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
A belated welcome! edit
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Liltender! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The "pressure groups" you mentioned edit
The discussion on Talk:Negroid#Map_from_the_Horniman_museum_is_correct has become a bit off-topic, so I'd like to continue it here. Could you please be more specific about the "powerful politically motivated unscientific pressure groups" which you mentioned there ? Who are these groups and who is behind them ?
BTW: I don't see that you proved your statement that "The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches." Rsk6400 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what you believe, what matters my provided links, where geneticist scientists discussing autosomal researches, and they use these categories. You still don't belive that scientists can determine ethnicity and other goupings from the DNA, despite the police also use it since a decade? They can even perdict the look from genetic data, and they can making close to perfect pictures about the offenders exact look, without even seeing the person of the offender.--Liltender (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I suggest to read this article RACE AND GENETICS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
- It's really rude not to sign and indent, you know. There's nothing in that article backing your claims about pressure groups or that ""The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches." Please show where it does. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, return to the topic. I proved that Autosomal researchers make clustering of populations, which based on the concept of race.
You have lost the debate with these links: Autosomal genetics, and negroids: Good reading: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+negroid&btnG= Autosomal Genetics and Mongoloids: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+mongoloid&btnG= Autosomal genetics and Australoids: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+australoid&btnG= ..
- I don't think discussions are about loosing or winning. They are about improving WP. I also enjoy learning from discussions. E.g., I learned what autosomes are. I suggest you should learn the difference between primary and secondary sources. The sources shown by your Google queries are primary sources. To establish your hypothesis from these sources would be WP:OR. Original research should not be included in articles, and those sources can serve as a good example for the reasons: Most of them are 15 or even 30 years old. To use them as a basis for an article, we would first have to establish whether they are still considered up to date in a rapidly developing science like genetics. The only recent source I saw was about a study on "Negroid" persons living in Latin America - here we would have to establish that the authors really meant "members of the Negroid race". Maybe they are not native speakers of English and just wanted to say "black". These are the endless problems of original research which cause it to be excluded from articles. BTW: You still didn't answer my question about the pressure groups. Which groups do you mean ? Who is behind them ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
IT is easier to answer, who is against the classification of human groups. The ethnic map of the USA and many Western European countries significantly changed. Non-european origin groups increased rapidly in these countries, thus it heavily impact the politics and economy of these countries. LArge corporations and politicians need the political or economic support of the society, including the huge non-European origin populations, and they want to preserve the existing social/economic order and peace. Moreover the non-european ethnic groups in Western countries are very fertile, and their ratio increasing in time. The politicians and corporations (incl. media too) have no other option , just to support multiculturalism and social peace. This is not conspiracy theory, but this is the plain simple socio-economic/demographic reality in the 21th century West.--Liltender (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, that is not conspiracy theory, but it is certainly not mainstream. And articles in Wikipedia should follow mainstream science, see WP:MAINSTREAM. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it physical anthropology (related to modern humans) as clear/pure science, because it is highly overpoliticized. All other parts of biology are pure science.--Liltender (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 17 edit
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- History of Transylvania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Kingdom of Croatia
- Treaty of Speyer (1570) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Kingdom of Croatia
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
This template must be substituted. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)