The1Beginning

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your addition to Haplogroup CT

Your addition to the Haplogroup CT page was removed (the material was first removed by another editor, and then your addition/reinstatement of similar material was removed by me), each time with explanations in the notes. However, you have repeatedly reinstated it without any explanation and have refused to discuss the issue on the Talk page despite being asked to and warned about edit warring, repeatedly ignoring the explanations in the edit notes (and most recently calling myself and other editors trolls). Again, it is not clear in the study whether the "CT" found in Natufians was paragroup CT* or an as-yet unidentified/unspecified haplogroup within the CT lineage. I am asking you again to please discuss and engage with the notes instead of simply reverting again without explanation. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS and as it stands, the consensus does not include your edit. Skllagyook (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is very clear. Natufian I1685; and I1690 belonged to haplogroup CT, supported by mutations M5593, PF228, M5624, PF342, Z17710, CTS2842, CTS5532, M5730, M5751, M5765, CTS11358Y1462, M5723, L977. Instead of you deleting factual content and simply saying its not "clear"; share the scientific data that actually supports your opinion with sources. Also read the sources and graphs you were provided twice already; if you would have looked at the graphs and tables it would have been "clear" but unfortunately you did not read. Additionally this Wikipedia article is pertaining to all lineages within CT. If you would like to discuss specific lineages then you can create a separate Wikipedia page to do so.The1Beginning (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

What sources and graphs did you provide? I do not remember you linking them. Can you please link them here. The article is mainly about the pararoup CT and its origins etc. (though it also mentions its subclades). The basal/undiferentiated/paragroup versions of some haplogroups/lineages have, in some cases, been found in modern populations as well as ancient remains, but this does not yet seem to be the case for CT. Simply mentioning that the Natufians carried "CT" is misleading because it suggests that they carried basal (undifferentiated/ancestral) CT without further mutations (i.e. CT*, the primary subject of the article) which, as far as I can tell, is not in evidence. What is known (and in the source) is that a certain percent of Natufians carried haplotypes within the CT lineage/"family" (some of which were identified as certain branches of its subgroup E, and some/others of which were not so identified and whose more precise identification within CT has not yet been determined. To distinguish undiferentiated/basal CT from its subgroups, the various mutations that distinguish its subgroups are usually tested for and ruled out. Also, please sign your posts at the end of each one to avoid confusion; to do this, type four tildes (~). Skllagyook (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did provide them however you failed to read them. Simply not understanding the information means you need a source to disprove it. Please provide your source for your statement below in bold as it is an Opinion and not backed up with a scientific source.

The Natufians carried "CT" is misleading because it suggests that they carried basal (undifferentiated/ancestral) CT without further mutations (i.e. CT*, the primary subject of the article) which, as far as I can tell, is not in evidence. What is known (and in the source) is that a certain percent of Natufians carried haplotypes within the CT lineage/"family" (some of which were identified as certain branches of its subgroup E, and some/others of which were not so identified and whose more precise identification within CT has not yet been determined. To distinguish undiferentiated/basal CT from its subgroups, the various mutations that distinguish its subgroups are usually tested for and ruled out.The1Beginning (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. I have seen and am aware of those tables. I did not say that CT was not present. Several Natufians carried haplotyopes within the CT lineage. However, these were never distinguished as basal CT. CT includes many branches/a great variety of haplogroups (pretty much any haplogroup that is not A or B - CT includes all descendants of DE, F, C, and more, but the article is about basal CT).

As User:Megalophias previously explained here [1]]: "Editors often list low coverage ancient DNA samples that were determined to be CT (or likewise on other pages, e.g. BT, IJK) on pages like this. This is misleading. Unless the sample has actually tested negative for downstream branches, there is nothing special about it. For instance, of 5 male Natufians studied by Laziridis et al, 3 were found to have E1b1, and 2 were CT - with no branches known to be negative. That only means they weren't A or B (or Neanderthal); it does not stop them from also having been E1b1, or anything else you might expect to find (H2, T, J, G, etc). Sure, in principle, they *could* carry some exotic CT paragroup - but their being listed as CT provides absolutely no evidence for that. Any random untested skeleton *could* carry some exotic CT paragroup, with equal probability. If a sample was found to actually have the paragroup CT*(C, D, E, F), that would be notable. Otherwise, having a plain CT sample is only interesting if any branch of CT it might belong to would likewise be interesting in that context. For instance, if you found CT in South Africa 30 000 years ago, or a Neanderthal with CT, or in Eurasia 60 000 years ago."

You do not seem to be engaging with my point. I have explained it more than once.Skllagyook (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Again I have asked you to provide a Scientific Source and not an opinion from User:Megalophias. You have already been provided the Haplogroups and now trying to convince yourself that Low Coverage debunks this study. Again a Primary Source includes Conference papers, dissertations, interviews, laboratory notebooks, patents, a study reported in a journal article, a survey reported in a journal article, and technical reports. This is not about opinions and also take in account that technology and discoveries are always on the brink.The1Beginning (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The point is that nowhere in the source is paragroup (undifferentiated/ancestral) CT specified. All that is known is that a certain percent of Natufians carried a haplogroup that was within the (very broad and diverse) CT lineage, which is almost another way of saying that it is as yet unspecified. All Eurasian lineages (and many African lineages) are within the lineage CT, but they are not basal/undiferentiated CT*.Skllagyook (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You still have not submitted a "Scientific source" to justify removal of factual content. Specific information that you would like the source to provide such has (basal, paragroup) is a personal matter and in no way, shape, or form debunks the fact haplogroup CT is of Natufian Origin nor does it to justify removal of the factual content you want to suppress. I again refer you to the mutations and graphs in my sources. I am still waiting on your sources to back up your opinion. The1Beginning (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This continues to go no where. You still have yet to engage with what I have explained, or with the response of User:Nil Einne. And there are no sources backing your puzzling statement that "CT is of Natufian origin." CT dates to approximately 100,000 years ago (likely in Northeast Africa) and is believed to predate the main Out-of-Africa migration of 70-50,000 years ago (in which some of its descendents later participated). It is (as the article explains) the ancestor of all (of the many) Eurasian haplogroup lineages and also many African ones, and vastly predates the Natufuans (who themselves were largely of Western Eurasian, possibly combined with minor African, ancestry).Skllagyook (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop referencing other users such as User:Nil Einne. I have responded to them you should allow them to speak for themselves. I also don't have a problem with User:Nil Einne because the user was respectful. Instead bring scientific sources to defend your point. I have already provided sources including factual peer review articles and you have still have yet to provide any evidence to defend deleting content. You keep on bringing up "Out-of-Africa" which I never brought up; you also didn't provide sources in how that disproves Natufians having Haplogroup CT. Again I'm not sure what your motive is here but there are other Wikipedia pages to discuss that information. Again a Primary Source includes Conference papers, dissertations, interviews, laboratory notebooks, patents, a study reported in a journal article, a survey reported in a journal article, and technical reports.The1Beginning (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not see where you responded to Nil Einne. They seem to have made a valid point but I cannot find your reply to it. Anyway, I explained my point several times but it does not seem that you are understanding or engaging with it. The CT article is about haplogroup CT*/basal CT, that is the undifferentiated haplogroup that is/was ancestral to all Eurasian, and some African, haplogroups (including CF, F, C, DE, D, E, GHIJK, etc., and the many descendants of those - which include most haplogroups of the world's population). As explianed before, to add material stating that the Natufians carried "CT" seems significantly misleading (especially for the general reader) because it seems to indicate that they carried basal/ancestral CT (which is not specified in the study). What is evident is that some of them carried some lineage found to belong to an unspecified branch/lineage within the vast "CT family" (like most of the world does) and thus the information as it is, is, as Megalophias said, "not special". It was never determined to be ancestral CT. This is a very different thing from them carrying ancestral CT*, which would be a quite significant discovery (with more testing, it might in the future be found that they did carry ancestral CT*, but currently that is not supported). In some papers, when a sample is found to belong to a haplogroup clade/lineage with subclade unspecified, it may be assigned simply to the broader lineage to which it has been determined to belong (e.g. CT, F, E, C) until it's place within the lineage is determined (whether belonging to the ancestral/basal/undifferentiated "paragroup" version of the lineage - which is signified with an asterisk/* after the letter, or to one of its various "downstream branches).

I only mentioned Out-of-Africa because you claimed in your last response that CT was "of Natufian origin". I was trying to explain why that would not make sense and is unsupported (the source certainly states nothing like that). It is not my intention to be disrespectful. But I ask that you please try to WP:LISTEN to my responses and engage with them.Skllagyook (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello I have still have not received any references from you proving that Natufian's didn't have Haplogroup CT. Therefore nothing is misleading until you can provide a source. Again if you would like to discuss specific lineages of CT including ancentral or a branch you are free to create a Wiki page. Again wanting to know more information does not prove anything in regards to Natufian's having Haplogroup CT. You also can't make demands about what is allowed to be posted on a page simply just because there is specific information you would like to know about (lineages, paragroup) which again do not disprove anything. You continue to reference others users to try and prove a point agin with no sources Again a Primary Source includes Conference papers, dissertations, interviews, laboratory notebooks, patents, a study reported in a journal article, a survey reported in a journal article, and technical reports.The1Beginning (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

References

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello have you seen my latest addition. As I have explain the user has not read the sources they only delete things. I was blocked when I have sources and evidence to prove it. I posted this "Yes it is very clear. Natufian I1685; and I1690 belonged to haplogroup CT, supported by mutations M5593, PF228, M5624,PF342, Z17710, CTS2842, CTS5532, M5730, M5751, M5765, CTS11358Y1462, M5723, L977."

October 2020

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Haplogroup CT) for a period of 1 week for refusing to discuss your edits on the article talk page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You are still free to participate in the discussion at the article talk page. However, if you continue to throw around the terms "troll", etc., then i will just block you from editing anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The1Beginning (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

All that I did was post information with sources and I reported this user Ticket#2020100810016537 yet I was blocked for just describing the harrasment. This user will now be allowed to freely delete any content they dislike which will only hurt people who want to learn.

Decline reason:

You were edit warring rather than engaging in discussion. You are not blocked from editing the talk page, and using that rather than continuing to edit war is what you need to be doing in any case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 9 October 2020 (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.

• No, as it says above, you were blocked for refusing to discuss your edits on the article talk page. You still have access to the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I never refused to discuss my edits additionally I responded to the user and I also provided the user with two sources which he failed to read or provide a scientific source disputing the information. I can't go back and forth with someone who lack scientific sources. Skyllagyook shouldn't be allowed to delete content with sources. Additionally the same information is available on other platforms.

Hello have you seen my latest addition. As I have explain the user has not read the sources they only delete. I posted this "Yes it is very clear. Natufian I1685; and I1690 belonged to haplogroup CT, supported by mutations M5593, PF228, M5624,PF342, Z17710, CTS2842, CTS5532, M5730, M5751, M5765, CTS11358Y1462, M5723, L977."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The1Beginning (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I can tell you, as long as your edit history includes zero edits to Talk:Haplogroup CT, you're likely to lose any arguments about how you were willing to discuss. While there's nothing wrong with responding to comments on your talk page, you should focus discussion over proposed changes to the article on the article talk page. And in addition, you should have started to discuss before you got into an edit war, and without calling other editors 'trolls'. Also supplementary materials are unlikely to be held to the same standard as the material in the peer-reviewed journal article, even more so if they are on a pre-print site and not the journal site. Therefore they need to be used with extreme caution, if at all. Finally, different supplementary material for the same journal article cannot be considered different sources. They are all basically one source. Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a professional Wikipedia editor therefore I didn't know there were rules that force you to debate disruptive editors. I'm not here to go on any type of war. Also I provided three sources which are scientific and peer edited; meanwhile the user deleting the information has no references after I continued to ask them to provide a reference to debunked the information that they seem to have an agenda against. The user simply disliked the content and was allowed to delete it. After I told the user I was going to report him. They started this blog about me insisting that I was the one who started this. Again I am not a professional Wikipedia editor and I don't know all of the rules. I simply provide factual information and sources. The user continued to mention Africa and to provide basal and paragroup information. I don't know the particular agenda behind this user. However simply wanting more information about a topic still being researched is not a fair reason to go on Wikipedia pages deleting contributors content; that is factual and backed up with sources.The1Beginning (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You're not a professional Wikipedia editor (none of us are, we're all volunteers, but I suppose I know what you mean) and don't understand all the rules... then wouldn't it make sense to listen to more experienced editors as they try to explain the rules? It seems odd to participate somewhere you self-admittedly aren't experienced, while simultaneously insisting that you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong and must do things your way. Also, it is not enough to "provide reliable sources" that you say support your edits; if there is a dispute, you have to get consensus that you are interpreting those sources correctly. That seems to be what this disagreement is about I linked to WP:DR before; did you read it? Consensus is king, here. If that isn't acceptable, then you'll need to participate somewhere else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If I may add two additional points. One is that you are still claiming you add 3 sources. Yet as I already suggested in my earlier answer, this doesn't seem to be the case. You added basically a single source. You cited supplementary material in the preprint version of that paper, and supplementary material in the published journal article of what was the preprint. I'm not sure where the third source comes from. On this page, but not in the article, you did add 3 refs, but the third ref is just a PDF link the the supplementary material you cited in the first ref. It has a lot of material but if you wanted to cite some other part of the PDF, this is unclear from you ref and it still wouldn't be a different source.

In itself, having a single source may not matter. You don't always need more than one source for something. However when you keep saying you have three sources (or something similar), but you only have one; this suggests either that you don't understand what you are citing, or that you are overplaying your references to try and make your claim stronger than it is. Neither help your case, they harm it.

Two "I don't know the particular agenda behind this use". That is precisely why you should assume good faith that the editor is simply trying to improve Wikipedia. And yes, sometimes improving Wikipedia does mean removing information that an editor feels isn't supported by the cited source, or where the source is too weak to support an unusual claim or simply because the source is not a reliable source. Note the onus is on anyone trying to add information to ensure that it is supported by sufficient sourcing. It is not necessary for anyone to debunk something if the source is either insufficient or doesn't actually support the claim.

This ties back into what Floquenbeam said. Ultimately only consensus can decide whether the information is indeed backed up by the source and the source is sufficient to support the claim. (Or factual if you want, although many contributors prefer to avoid such terms since they can lead down the wrong path.) When it's clear someone has a good faith disagreement with what you are trying to add, then you should begin a discussion on the article talk page to resolve the disagreement because you are both trying to improve Wikipedia.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello i disagree its not odd to not odd to not know all of the posting rules on Wikipedia when you aren't a professional poster. What is strange is that the same people who have no sources are trying to debunk something when they have none to disprove it. Actually I did provide more than One Source in my Talk response to Skyllagook if you would like to scroll up you will see it . The user has absolutely no sources and is trying to debate me when the resource has clear graphs and data and mutations that the user has still failed to read. He continues to mention Africa and other Users which I'm not sure has anything to do with disproving the research. If there is something to dispute please provide a scientific source if you intend on defending a user who is fully capable of defending himself. As I stated before simply disagreeing with the source or information means you need to provide a source to that has determined it is unreliable. I still have not received One Single Source that proved that the Sources I provided aren't trusted or information debunking scientific facts. Then the data will stand until someone can disprove the source which has not been done. I should not be targetted because I dont know all the ins- and out of Wikipedia editing FYI I didn't even know what a Talk page was. Instead of trying to use pseudoscience or opinions it would be more productive if the user provided scientific data not, personal agendas to disprove factual information.

I don't know how to say this any more clearly other than to say that these 3 references do not count as more than one source

Lazaridis, Iosif; et al. (17 June 2016). "The genetic structure of the world's first farmers". bioRxiv 10.1101/059311. – Table S6.1 – Y-chromosome haplogroups
Lazaridis, Iosif et al. Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East, Nature 536, 419–424, 2016. Supplementary Table 1.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2016/06/16/059311.DC1/059311-1.pdf.

If that is what you are referring to, and after all this time you don't understand that they are basically the same source, then I'm not sure Wikipedia is the right place for you. We rely on reliable sources, so the ability to differentiate what are different sources is imperative. And once again, there is no need to debunk anything if the sourcing isn't sufficient. You need to provide sources for any claims or "facts" you want to add, and frankly no one is going to trust you when you keep insisting you have multiple sources when anyone who looks can clearly see you only have one at most. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Also note that Harvard Publications has posted info here . Why would Harvard University share information on their site that cannot be independently verified? Again I only present factual information and my sources have been verified as 100% authentic. However the user who is being defending has absolutely no sources and is unable to disprove the factual evidence proving that the Natufians have Haplogroup CT. I also have Four other sources from different Scientist that give even more context to the populations at that I did not even post (Pickrell, J. K.; Qin, P. & Stoneking; Skoglund, and Mathieson, I. ). If you would like I can link them in and you can read them. None of these scientist contradict each other and the data is consistent. I still have yet to receive a single source from the User deleting content off of Wikipedia. The disruptive user has tried to use posting rules to this suppress information and has completely failed to objectively disprove any of the facts I have presented.The1Beginning (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you never linked to that before. And actually that's a good thing. Linking to hundreds of different copies of the exact same source seems to prove you are desperate and must be wrong. Why else do you insist on linking to multiples copies of the same thing except because you know you are wrong? As I said at the beginning, if your source is good, you shouldn't need to link to so many different versions. One version is enough, and you would openly say you only have one source, but it's good enough to support what you are claiming. Also that PDF is simply a copy of material that is part of some publication elsewhere, that is on a lab site I assume of the lab the work was under. It wasn't "shared" by the university, it's quite likely academic freedom means they actually have limited say on what is on that site especially for material that is part of some publication. Shared by the university is a silly criterion anyway. In the modern world it's very easy to see this since you just have to look at the amount of press releases from universities that get stuff wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

In case it's still unclear, I'm not saying the material you are trying to add is unsupported or insufficiently sourced. I haven't looked. You're not giving me a reason to look and try to understand the dispute. My whole point it that if you want to convince people you're right, you need a different approach. Stop linking to the same source multiple times and insisting you have more than one source. Stop making nonsense arguments like it was published by some scientist so must be right, especially when it's simply supplementary material. Instead, try I have this single source which is supplementary material to a peer reviewed publication. Here's what I want to add to the article. Here's what the supplementary material says which supports what I want to add. Here's why I feel the supplementary material is sufficient to support my addition. (Possibly referencing stuff in the journal article proper will help, but not suggest this is a distinct source.) Do not call anyone a troll or call into question their motives. Do not at any stage ask someone to debunk your material or to provide a source proving it's wrong. That's not their job. All they have to do is come up with a policy/guideline back argument for why what you're trying to add isn't supported by the source, or why the source isn't sufficient for the claim. Start at the article talk page (when you're unblocked), and use WP:RSN or some other form of WP:Dispute resolution if it becomes necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)