User talk:Dougwash

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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bogotá, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Cundinamarca Department page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=753720399 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F753720399%7CCundinamarca Department%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartagena ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2023_FIFA_Women%27s_World_Cup check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2023_FIFA_Women%27s_World_Cup?client=notify 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) 09:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

About reverting an estimate of the ethnic population
Hello, it seems that your edits have mainly been focused on removing estimates and keeping census data, I’ll tell you why that isn’t valid. Census data usually underestimates the minorities in Colombia and specifically underestimates Afro Colombian and Indigenous populations within Colombia, they are simply estimates and shouldn’t be removed just to keep the census data. It’s been known that the indigenous and Afro Colombian populations have been undercounted for a variety of reasons in Colombia, they have been historically discriminated and had their land taken from them by mestizo or white land owners. There are many cites that support the estimate that was included in the Colombia page and it would be best not to be removed as it already states it is an estimation, the same numbers are used within the respective pages and add up together. If you continue to revert without speaking here than it will be considered edit warring. Zaquezipe (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Also genetic studies don’t prove demographic data, they are simply genetic studies based off the general population and have nothing to do with the demographics of a country. If you are referring to the genetic studies that include the 65% European, 27% indigenous, and 8% African studies then those have already been proved to be biased, they focus on upper class Colombians and more European descent Colombians rather than focusing on the population and the ethnic diversity within Colombia as a whole, more accurate genetic studies of Colombia that involve more than a thousand people within the study and focused on all regions of the country as well as all ethnic groups involve Colombians being 40% European, 40% indigenous, and 20% African on average. Many demographic studies as well such as latinobarómetro support this further, with an estimated 10% of Colombians identifying as indigenous, 20% as white, 15% as African, and the rest mestizo. It is simply including estimates included already on their respective pages and removing it without a valid reason such as the one you just removed it for is vandalism and not a constructive edit, please refrain from doing this. Zaquezipe (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It also seems the Afro Colombian percentage was discussed with another user, where the estimate was kept. The 22% figure includes both full Afro Colombians and mulattos as shown by the cites, 20% is the most common estimate for whites in Colombia, 10.4% is the estimate for indigenous peoples in Colombia as they have been historically undercounted within the census in Colombia, proved in my cites and websites such as latinobarometro and other demographics studies, and the 47.6% figure for mestizos is used within the mestizo Colombians page and is an estimate for mestizo Colombians. In fact, all of these are used in their respective pages and have stayed there, the estimation should most certainly remain as well as these as it gives another glimpse into the demographics of Colombia rather than just using census data which very likely undercounts the other groups of Colombia. Zaquezipe (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Zaquezipe, please note during the last census which was carried out in 2018, figures were adjusted for Black Colombians to better reflect their presence in the country. Initially, less than 3 million Colombians self-identified as black but DANE authorities placed the percentage higher to prevent this. This is called margin of error. Colombia does not undercount any specific ethnic group on purpose.

It's actually quite the opposite of what you're saying. If anything, Colombian minorities often get benefits that other Colombians don't, such as a special quota policy at public universities, just to name an example. There have been cases of non-ethnic Colombians identifying as either black or indigenous to get access to such benefits.

Talking about biased, I do think you have an ethnic agenda going on judging by your username Zaquezipe (if anyone reads this, that was the name given to indigenous chiefs in pre-Columbian times) and you're clearly trying to throw it down everyone's throat at the expense of Colombia's page lol. The largest, most thorough genetic study practised on the Colombian population actually took samples from children involved in paternity disputes, who were far from being wealthy or well off and it was published by Universidad Nacional de Colombia, with inputs from Yunis, one of Colombia's most renowned geneticists. Thousands of children from all across the country were tested. Usually, more focalised studies give different results but if you take the bulk of the population as a reference, you usually get results like the ones obtained from that study.

Let's pretend you're right and the census undercounts minority populations, how do you explain such a huge disparity? From 9% black (including mulattoes, etc.) to 22% and from 4% indigenous to +10%. That's twice as much and clearly outside the margin error window. Moreover, those are not the only ethnicity estimates for Colombia out there.
 * You forgot to sign your comment however, I can provide why that’s not true what you are saying. I have seen from your many edits that you were involved in edit wars with user Merchananco over this same issue where you didn’t want to provide estimates and only wanted to stick to census data, even with the Colombian government counting Afro Colombians higher at 9% this still isn’t the full Afro Colombian population, as even many scholars still debate that it is much higher than what the government lists it as, it is a general consensus by many scholars and one that’s used in many Wikipedia pages. The estimate comes from using the percentages used in their own respective pages for the estimates and has no reason to be removed other than wanting to clearly undercount the minorities. Also, you are breaking one of the rules of Wikipedia which is not to Harass the user but instead focus on content, if you revert this page one more time within 24 hours then mods will be contacted. I will already reach with one of the mods as this behavior you have been showing is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Also Colombian minorities do not get benefits that others don’t, do the research, around half of all registered indigenous Colombians and many Afro Colombians are in poverty and are frequently targeted by military groups throughout the country, they also have land frequently taken from them and there’s even a whole Wikipedia page about this subject. So please conduct with civility and do not harass other users on the basis of their names, and rather than reverting the edits and engaging in an edit war, let’s settle our dispute in this page.Zaquezipe (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I can provide sources that back up my claim.
 * https://www.fordfoundation.org/news-and-stories/stories/how-more-accurate-census-data-can-shape-social-justice-in-colombia-and-peru/
 * https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1277501/download
 * https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/colombia-under-review-violence-against-indigenous-peoples-while-protests-rage-home
 * https://www.iwgia.org/en/news/3908-the-end-of-the-illusion-for-indigenous-peoples-in-colombia.html
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/27/indigenous-people-march-on-bogota-to-demand-justice-for-killings
 * https://ibb.co/Rb7mFqX
 * https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/1621/article-87286.html
 * http://www.schwartzman.org.br/simon/coesion_etnia.pdf
 * https://digitk.areandina.edu.co/bitstream/handle/areandina/1457/Geografía%20humana%20de%20Colombia.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45822469_Genetic_Make_Up_and_Structure_of_Colombian_Populations_by_Means_of_Uniparental_and_Biparental_DNA_Markers
 * https://www.banrep.gov.co/sites/default/files/paginas/lbr_colonial_graficos3.pdf
 * I can provide much more but these are just a few sources that back up my claim. Zaquezipe (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2024 (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. Thank you. Zaquezipe (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think 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:. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Genetic makeup Colombia
I saw that you have better investigation about the Colombian genepool and ethnic classification even into other colombian editors, so the European genes Colombian could be close to 60% averaged, despite other regions are 40-55% but in other places reach more than 75%, the genetic diversity in South America its very high. Greetings Vers2333 (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you. There are various studies, but the most thorough to date was one from Emilio Yunis who had thousands and thousands of samples. However, Zaquezipe just thrusted some random study into Colombia's wiki page without discussing it in the country's talk page. Who decides what is the best study anyway? Dougwash (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Emilio Yunis study is clearly flawed despite having a larger sample pool. Theres clear discrepancy between the Emilio Yunis study and most other genetic studies conducted on Colombians. Lets start with the first reason, its an outlier study in which it is the sole study that shows Colombia has having a majority european ancestry at around 65% with little native and african ancestry. Remember, most studies show Colombia as having 40-60% European ancestry, 30-50% Native Ancestry and 10-20% African ancestry. And within that study, the amazonian region is labelled as having 30% Native ancestry despite being the most indigenous region of Colombia with little european contact, that would mean the amazonian region is a euro mestizo region despite surrounding amazonian regions being mostly indigenous. Not only that, that study is from 1993 and is considered extremely outdated, I wouldn't recommend the use of the study, its not reliable and its outdated. Zaquezipe (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Study that I used takes Colombian participates from every region of the country with the Antioquia region having around 65% European ancestry and 25% native ancestry, this means the other studies would be more in line with colombians from antioquia, with the more indigneous regions having around 60-70% Native ancestry with 30% European ancestry, this would make more sense and is more natural as well as more inline with Colombias demographics. The study is also more recent and is still up unlike the Emilio Yunis study. Zaquezipe (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop discussing this on individual user talk pages. Click "Talk" above the article you're discussing and create a section for the discussion, so that there is a central place where a consensus can be found. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)