User talk:DrLewisphd

DNA Tribes
Just wrote a long post and Firefox crashed. I see you are interested in Egyptology. You'll find WP:RS and WP:VERIFY very useful in understand what sort of sources we are looking for. DNA Tribes doesn't meet our criteria, and we really should try to use only peer reviewed sources for genetics. iGENEA doesn't either, but it got a lot of media attention so its view is significant enough to meet WP:NPOV and be included (see WP:UNDUE. If you still think it qualifies to be in the article, could you comment at WP:RSN - you might want to read Andrew Lancaster's reply to me there. But please, if you disagree, base your disagreement on our policies and guidelines. And you might want to see discussions at our AE wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt and join the project. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed as you don't seem to have read the links I gave you. Dougweller (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You still have made no arguments to show that it meets our criteria as a reliable source and doesn't belong in our articles, not just this one. 4 experienced editors have said DNA Tribes is not a reliable source, yet you keep replacing it. This isn't exactly constructive. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

ATR
I hope you can eagerly return to the ATR page and assist in beating out a lead which does justice to ATR. Thanks. --Inayity (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please avoid reverting to your version which is in dispute. use the talk page. Your recent edits have deleted many hard won and agreed stages. it also deleted many references. see difference in quality --Inayity (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
Deleting tags without addressing the problem can be considered vandalism. Please address the actual problem; don't just sweep it under the carpet by deleting the tag. — kwami (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to change the wording, then change the wording, but vandalism will only get you blocked. And if you're blocked, you'll have no say in how I edit the article.  — kwami (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Languages of Zimbabwe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tonga language and Ndebele language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of kings of Rwanda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nyanza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Zimbabwe without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Traditional African religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vodou (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

December 27
Ok thank you. And I have made a systematic effort to expand Wikipedia coverage of Middle Africa since the independence of South Sudan in 2011 as the history of this very important region (Sao civilization, Kanem Empire, Bornu Empire, Baguirmi, Shilluk etc.) has been systematically swept aside due to the confusion between Central Africa and Middle Africa (the previous article on Central Africa only focused on the Bantu-speaking areas of Central Africa because these countries of Chad, Central African Republic, South Sudan and Cameroon are very different demographically from sub-equatorial Africa and the stricter definition of Central Africa only includes Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic). If you could please look at the Middle Africa article before making more changes that would be great. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For one, South Sudan is not included in the UN version of Middle Africa. Consider this: United_Nations_geoscheme.  Southeast Africa is simply a sub-region of East Africa.  As I said in your talk page, you can't systematically change East Africa to Southeast Africa (or slip in Southeast Africa) without justification or reliable sources.  That's WP:NOR and WP:SYN and doesn't verify basic tenant of verifiability.  Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source.  For example for the Demographics of Africa you must find reliable sources that divide the demography of Africa as you do and show that those sources carry more weight.  Keep up the good work. DrLewisphd (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For example in the Demographics of Africa article you have now completely deleted references to the historically important Sara, Zande, and Gbaya people of Middle Africa as well as deleted references to the Songhai and Zarma people. I am sure you are trying to be helpful but I think you should be more careful in your editing. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC) You have also restored the error of Luhya being a Nilo-Saharan language and deleted references to other peoples as well. If you could please be more careful in your editing.  Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You may want to check List_of_regions_of_Africa or find reliable sources to justify your changes. Usually each edits must be justified. Don't forget to note changes in edit summary, it's easier to follow the multiple changes you made. DrLewisphd (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please use the talk page. I have started a discussion there so please do not use my talk page for any discussion. Do not revert again before using the talk page or I will report you for vandalism. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You made of lot of changes in the article and I don't agree with some of them. So there's no consensus on the change. You don't provide any source for your changes so I have the complete right to reverse your edits.  As I said above, you may want to check List_of_regions_of_Africa for list of regions of Africa or provide reliable sources explaining the changes you made. DrLewisphd (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See Demographics of Article Talk Page-am responding there. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Your recent editing history at Black Egyptian Hypothesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Black Egyptian Hypothesis". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 05:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AN You May Have Interest In
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetics
Have you read any of my talk page comments? You are cherry-picking data from a study whose objective was "To investigate the true character of the harem conspiracy described in the Judicial Papyrus of Turin and determine whether Ramesses III was indeed killed." We can use it to discuss the harem conspiracy but taking one bit of data to prove a point is against our policies and guidelines. The way we write our articles is extremely different to the way most academics work, as they can build arguments from sources anyway they choose if it makes sense. We can't. Our sources need to directly address the subject of the article and we can't interpret them. This often is quite a surprise to academics (and was a surprise to me and confused me at first). WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY help to explain this. Please don't indulge, as one editor has, in suggestions of racism or conspiracies. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "To investigate the true character of the harem conspiracy described in the Judicial Papyrus of Turin and determine whether Ramesses III was indeed killed." This is only the big line of the study (usually a way to get a grant) but a study can have multiple objectives including knowing more about Ramses III's DNA, this is very typical of such studies.  The study from the British Medical Journal truly identified the haplogroup of Ramses III.  Although in the BMJ study "sub-Sahara Africa" is not mentioned in relation to E1b1a or to Ramses III, that's why I removed it.  Some people outside Africa carry the E1b1a haplogroup and it was not part of the study.  The British Medical Journal is certainly a valid source respecting both WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. DrLewisphd (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The BM J is a reliable source if used according to our guidelines and policies. The objectives of a study are generally in the last section, usually called dupiscussion or summary. I repeat, we shouldn't be using raw data. Why would we? In this case it seems as though it is being used by multiple editors to make a point about "race" or skin color that is not discussed in the article. And that is "original research". Doug Weller  talk 21:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please also see the new comments at Talk:Ramesses III. You should know that we do have a place to ask if a particular source can be used for a particular statement (note again that sources aren't universally reliable, and even if reliable that doesn't mean they should be in the article, but that's a different issue) at WP:RSN. Doug Weller  talk 21:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Your recent editing history at DNA history of Egypt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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.I've warned you in the past about edit-warring Doug Weller  talk 11:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

August 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at DNA history of Egypt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)