User talk:Bathtub Barracuda

Speedy deletion nomination of The Redemption of Ham


A tag has been placed on The Redemption of Ham requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.yooying.com/p/1669603637562150930_3168544487. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cabayi (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a copyvio

 * Message copied from user talk:RHaworth


 * Greetings, It has come to my attention that the article I wrote for a painting called The Redemption of Ham was deleted on grounds of copyright infringement . This link was provided as reference for the alleged original creation: (The specific pin has since been deleted, however you can find similar ones here with the very same badly translated text).


 * The link redirects to a pin-style image-board with some text provided in English which resembles the one presented on my article. The text in specific is actually a software's procedural translation of Wikipedia's very own article, in Portuguese, for the painting. You can see the article in question here: pt:A Redenção de Cam.


 * I had taken the original article, properly translated it (which explains the alleged copyright violation), provided the International Phonetic Alphabet's pronunciation, added new text and references (which represented roughly 50% of the actual article deleted), and reformatted every reference and layout element so it would meet the English Wikipedia's html.
 * Given that Wikipedia's Creative Common's license applies to all of it's language platforms; at no point was the pin owner of the text provided, given that translation is considered derivative work and thus tied to Wikipedia's free distribution license (unless direct permission is provided). At no point was the author of the pin entitled to the creative rights of the text provided, ergo no copyright was violated.


 * Presenting this I would like to see my article restored. Thanks in advance for your time and your service. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Draft has been restored here. Barracuda, you need to learn how to format links: internal, inter-wiki and external. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Redemption of Ham has been accepted
 The Redemption of Ham, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=The_Redemption_of_Ham help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula into Draft:Population Genetics of Modern Latin Americans. 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.,. 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 Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I contributed extensively to most of the text used, thanks.Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Spaniards. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. This is about your unexplained removal of a legitimate request for a citation. Largoplazo (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Western world "map"
If of continued interest, I placed a link to previous discussion (from 2017) on the Talk:Western world. I looked through Huntington's book, and he does not state there are clear lines of cultural division, much to the contrary. Clear boundaries are not "civilizations" or cultures or "worlds". Clear boundaries are necessary for maps. It is appropriate to remove a map from the lede, especially given globalization. If needed, ping my at "Talk:Western world". X1\ (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)>
 * Indeed, I find nothing conflicting about this statement. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2019 El Paso shooting, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. See the discussion on the article's Talk page.  General Ization Talk  04:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2019 El Paso shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Please note that you are now at 3 reverts.  General Ization Talk  05:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  05:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. 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:. El_C 05:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Unblock
That does not respond to 3RR having been violated. As is clear from the AN3 report, you reverted three users: Ianmacm, General Ization, as well as QuestFour. El_C 06:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed it doesn't, but there is leniency to the 3RR specific to the up-keeping of the quality of an article that is relevant or featured, there is a clear summary of the situation and and specially when there is evidence of dialog and civil engagement on the talk section. My edits where reverted with no apparent guideline being violated a total of 8 times despite the fact that I was addressing my arguments on the Talk Section, and as stated by the guidelines 3 reverts may be a rule of thumb, but libel can manifest with less than that, I tried to be civil and neutral throughout the whole ordeal and my only aim was the quality of the article, meanwhile a possible case of POV editing remains unaddressed.Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of that is outside my purview. I have tried to be lenient with 3RR on the article, but I'm not prepared to let it turn into a free-for-all — six reverts is too much. As for but libel can manifest with less than that — I don't know what you mean by that. El_C 07:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See Wikilawyering, of the subcategory spurious legalisms.  General Ization  Talk  01:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 09:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Warning about fringe, NPOV, replacement of a 2017 source for genetics with a 1999 source, etc.
I don't think there's any point in going into long detail and I don't have time, but you made a pov/fringe mess. The whole Haplogroup X is completely obsolete and your statement about Kennewick man misrepresents him completely. Why didn't you read our article on him which says "Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide." and gives an uptodate description of his DNA? Doug Weller talk 10:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia's article on Kennewick Man:

"In June 2015 the study team announced they had concluded their DNA analysis, finding that "Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide." They said that genetic comparisons show "continuity with Native North Americans" The same study confirmed the mitochondrial haplogroup X2a and the Y-chromosome haplogroup Q-M3 of Kennewick Man, both lineages are found almost exclusively among modern Native Americans."


 * From Wikipedia's article on mtDNA haplogroup X:

"Haplogroup X has been found in various other fossils that were analysed for ancient DNA, including specimens associated with the Alföld Linear Pottery (X2b-T226C, Garadna-Elkerülő út site 2, 1/1 or 100%), Linearbandkeramik (X2d1, Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld, 1/22 or ~5%), and Iberia Chalcolithic (X2b, La Chabola de la Hechicera, 1/3 or 33%; X2b, El Sotillo, 1/3 or 33%; X2b, El Mirador Cave, 1/12 or ~8%) cultures. Haplogroup X has been found in ancient Egyptian mummies excavated at the Abusir el-Meleq archaeological site in Middle Egypt, which date from the late New Kingdom and Roman periods. Fossils excavated at the Late Neolithic site of Kelif el Boroud (Kehf el Baroud) in Morocco, which have been dated to around 5,000 years old, have also been found to carry the X2 subclade. This relative absence of haplogroup X2 in Asia is one of the major factors used to support the Solutrean hypothesis during the early 2000s. The Solutrean hypothesis postulates that haplogroup X reached North America with a wave of European migration emerging from the Solutrean culture, roughly 20,000 years ago. a stone-age culture in south-western France and in Spain, by boat around the southern edge of the Arctic ice pack. Since the later 2000s and during the 2010s, evidence has turned against the Solutrean hypothesis, as no presence of mt-DNA ancestral to X2a has been found in Europe or the Near East. New World lineages X2a and X2g are not derived form the Old World lineages X2b, X2c, X2d, X2e, and X2f, indicating an early origin of the New World lineages "likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East". A 2008 study came to the conclusion that the presence of haplogroup X in the Americas does not support migration from Solutrean-period Europe."

Mentions of mtDNA and Y-DNA as an useful tool to reconstruct the genetic history of native americans and discard the absurd belief that persists well into the 21th century that some ancient migration from Europe into the Americas is the source of pre-columbine populations. mtDNA haplogroup X in particular has been used in the past as it's cladistics help us discard such possibility soundly. The sources I provided on my edits were absolutely valid and recent, no one on this website has the potesty of discarding one source over the other due to age unless the source has been contested, even further when later studies replicate the results found and build up a body of data. What this seems to me is the refusal by very "emotionally engaged" people on such absurd beliefs af the Soultrean hypothesis with an agenda to eliminite all desambiguating data on pre-Beringian sources for Native American genetic ancestry. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

POV and falsification of references

 * Please stop reverting incorrect information at Ancient North Eurasians. Although I would like to give you the benefit of a doubt, as most of us (myself included) were ignorant of the rules here when we started out as editors, your persistence in falsifying the references leads me to suspect your edits may have a malicious and subversive intent. If you have anything to link ANE ancestry to blond hair genetics in Native Americans, please post it at the talk page so the community can review that. 1800s theological reports are not acceptable references. Please note that very high standards have been set through recent consensus on the placement of genetic studies next to statements about the genetic ancestry of ancient or living human populations. Most genetic studies are not admissable to Wikipedia. Even if you found a link from 1999 or even 2019 suggesting that blond ANE individuals made their way to North America, that does not necessarily mean it will be accepted at Ancient North Eurasians. Go read WP:MEDDATE and WP:SCIRS for a good reminder on how to contribute to Wikipedia.


 * On another note, please understand that basal haplogroup X and the Altaic/Beringian X2 are East Eurasian haplogroups and that any reference to them as being "Caucasoid" (or Mongoloid, for that matter) will not be being tolerated on this website. Your contributive liberties on Wikipedia may be severely restricted if you continue to use it to brodcast your fantasies as if they were facts. Respectfully, Hunan201p (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You make yourself look stupid, there is no point in suggesting that Native Americans exhibited at any point blonde hair as this has not been confirmed by the fossil record, the idea of such mention is to uniquely provide an upper limit to the estimates for the origin of such feature, there is no logical process which implies or arrives at the conclusion that native americans themselves have to be blonde for they to reference a feature that was satellital to one of their founding populations. There is no such thing as "high standards" for the article, specially when there is mobb behavior enforced by people sustaining ridiculous beliefs through dogma and selectively and arbitrarily discarding perfectly good evidence by refering to it as "fringe" (the idea of a 2015 study being fringe and that a 2016 source is "not quotable by not being printed" while being published on the journal's reference notes themselves is both hilarious and sets a terrible precedent for.

""please understand that basal haplogroup X and the Altaic/Beringian X2 are East Eurasian haplogroups and that any reference to them as being "Caucasoid" (or Mongoloid, for that matter) will not be being tolerated on this website.""


 * Absurd dogma and completely irrelevant accolate, its irrelevant where X2 haplogroup comes from, it's parent clade is inequivocally West Eurasian and steems from the greater Bosphorus region, its presence in Native Americans must be explained through cladistic reconstruction, its impossible for a subclade to generate itself independently of its pleisomorphy, the idea that this is even debateable shows how uninformed you are on what Population Genetics constitute. Jennifer A. Raff, Iosif Lazaridis and other leading figures in archaeogenetics have already addressed this.

""Removed orginal research by individual who is apparently unaware of genetics research on the East Eurasian basal haplogroups X and X2a.""


 * Hilarious for you to think that you hold some form of authority of judgement, should I remind you that any self percieved authority percieved through dogma doesn't necessarily translate to 1 year old sockpuppets. Thanks for completely destroying an article in which I've been working for months, removing almost half of the text. Should I revoke my common's license over just so that you can finish doing as you please and completely misrepresenting the body of data on Archaeogenetics? Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I see you've already been told not to copy from other articles without attribution
Yet you continue to do it. You are also putting wikilinks in section headings, which we don't do. But the worse thing is that you are adding sourced material without checking the sources. I've had far too many experiences of text being moved around in an article so that the citation left behind now looks as though it sources something else, or obsolete material being moved into another article because it hasn't been checked. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I am currently formating the article, I will take some iterations before its ready, im shaping things up and then will conclude in a presentable result. Most of the information i am copying from was originally redacted by me to begin with. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Redacted means edited, not written, and that's irrelevant, it still needs attribution. And if you wrote it some time ago it might be out of date. Also you need to follow WP:Summary style with a link to the main article. Doug Weller  talk 12:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I will attribute but please let me format this and improve the redaction in order to leave an organized scheme that can be further followed. I basically am starting this article from scratch with quality in mind, just need some time (and possibly help).Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't use preprints
You need to wait for the peer reviewed article to be published. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy Genetic articles are quotable even if pre-prints. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That's an article, not a Wikipedia guideline or policy. See this discussion on the specific issue. I have a particular problem with the fact it's two years old. If it hasn't been published yet then we definitely shouldn't use it. They may have decided not to publish, it might have been rejected and they are rewriting it, we just don't know. The only exception would be if a peer reviewed publication has commented on it.
 * In any case it's a primary source and thus has to be treated carefully. See WP:PRIMARY. One final point, with this sort of article we should use the discussion/conclusions section, not the main body of the report. Doug Weller  talk 12:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are refering specifically to the article about Common West Eurasian ancestry right? All other sources should be valid then. I will replace them.Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism at West Eurasians
Hello, I'm Rsk6400. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to West Eurasians have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. I'm referring specifically to your removal of maintenance flags, but also to your promotion of fringe theory, see WP:Vandalism --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

January 2022
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at West Eurasians. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Referring to your edit summary, "vandalized by user Rsk6400". Note that you did not even ping me.'' Rsk6400 (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)