User talk:Elbeavo

Your edits at Eran Elhaik, are (a) a WP:OR violation, since it is original search to write up what you regard as co nclusive in a secondary source. Such a comment can only be used if it comes from independent sources. (b) It violates WP:NPOV, since you are asserting as a 'truth' one opinion in a scientific debate, (c) an opinion by Flegontov et al to which the criticized authors have responded. For these reasons, you abuse of wiki procedures on a WP:BLP article will be automatically reverted at sight, and if you persist you will be reported.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 19:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Your recent editing history at Eran Elhaik 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. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to How do I responding to an editor threatening to block
Thanks David notMd, HugSyrup and Colinfine, I have amended the sentence to this:

'The paper by Das et al employs a 'Geographic Population Structure (GPS) method’ which Flegontov et al 2016 show in their section 'GPS is not Suitable for Inferring Ancestry'  may not correctly identify ancestral populations that have admixed or moved over time. ' I dont see how this counters the objectivity which Wikipedia claims to purvey- but I'd appreciate your advice again before proceeding.

Elbeavo
 * You have failed to grasp that a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is NPOV, which denies editors any right to prejudge a dispute between specialists by writing of it in such a way that the viewpoint of one of the two parties is true. ('Flegontov' et al 2016 show etc.,) assumes the validity of their critique. If you want to mention that you are obliged (a)to write 'argue', and (b) add in the corresponding reply to their objection which you can readily find on Elhaik's page. Do neither, or only one, and you are espousing a cause, which is prohibited. Only both secure NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)