User talk:FortyTwoTribes

Welcome!
Hello, FortyTwoTribes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2017 (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 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) 07:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in an editing war however the fact that I am accused of being in one is telling. I accidentally saved an edit too early, then updated it a couple times with corrections. Within an hour someone was changing my edits. I'm being accused of being in an editing war by User:Doug Weller, an individual who has censored what I edited since 2012. I chronicled his exploits in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8biyiyZenQ. I'm not about to argue with someone who has verifiable racist and/or corrupt behavior. Some things should not be up for debate, especially with the corrupt. I propose that we maintain my edit. Wikipedia never requires all of this moving of the bar nonsense to cite ancestry test ran by ancestry companies but with ancient Egyptians it's different. Even with samples that are frequently sourced as they pertain to paternity and relationships the five ancestry test, that used the same genetic data are censored by User:Doug Weller. That is two companies and five test that are using samples that User:Doug Weller has no issue with.

The fact that DNA Tribes was removed from Wikipedia and it's citations were censored by User:Doug Weller shows that there is a conflict of interest (to put it nice). That is why my edits should be maintained. There has never been a consistent argument against citing ancestry test ran by ancestry companies, websites, TV shows, blogs etc. If a researcher wants to know about ancient Egyptian genetics, then ancestry test ran on ancient Egyptians have to be in Wikipedia. If I reedit what User:Doug Weller removed then it is me telling the truth and User:Doug Weller fighting to censor it. Thus I'm not the one in an editing war. The war is User:Doug Weller's against reality. But, if there is a war to be fought, I'm not going anywhere. Based on the case that I put forward I will put my edits back. Nobody has made a reasonable case against them. User:Doug Weller has has demonstrated that he should not be in the conversation. Again I refer to the video. FortyTwoTribes (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is sad. I'm clearly not User:Jytdog and never accused you of being in an editing war. As anyone can see below, I tried to give you encouraging and helpful advice, writing "Besides the lack of WP:Edit summaries], as a new editor you don't seem to know that we need academic studies for this sort of discussion about DNA. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS to see why I'm telling you this. Thanks and don't get discouraged. Doug Weller talk 9:42 am, Yesterday (UTC+1)" I treated your edits as what we call (and ask everyone to offer good faith. Your response was to accuse me of something I never did and call me a racist corrupt.


 * Your YouTube video shows that you know how to find peoples edits, yet you clearly haven't looked at mine very carefully where they concern issues of real racism. I've edited quite a few recently. For instance, on the talk page of Jared Taylor's article I made this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Taylor&diff=793716233&oldid=793714541 saying "It's common knowledge that white supremacist organisations and individuals have been rebranding, some, eg David Duke, as long ago as the 80s. See for example Mother Jones has an interesting analysis of this. The ADL's page on rebranding specifically mentions Taylor calling him " the forerunner of the “suit and tie racists,” who couched their blatantly white supremacist ideologies in pseudo-scientific theories and seemingly inoffensive language." Nice quote, maybe we should use it. I'm serious about the idea that Rebranding, maybe Rebranding the Right or something like that, is probably now notable enough for an article." It's demonstrably a fact that I'm anti-racist. Wikipedia is a main stream encyclopedia and always prefers academic sources and peer-reviewed publications, particularly for articles that deal with scientific issues.


 * Your YouTube video mentions iGENEA and seems to suggest that we use it as a reliable source as contrasted to DNA Tribes. We certainly do not, at least where it comes to King Tut (I can't speak for other articles other to say that there are a lot that need to be cleaned up to meet our criteria). What we do say is " however iGENEA, a Swiss personal genomics company, claimed to have reconstructed King Tut's Y-DNA profile based on screencaps from a Discovery Channel documentary about the study. iGENEA without producing any proof, proposed that King Tut belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1a2,[32][33] Members of the research team that conducted the academic study published in 2010 stated they had not been consulted by iGENEA before they published the haplogroup information and described iGENEA's claims as "unscientific." [31] After pressure to publish Tutankhamun's full DNA report to confirm his Y-DNA results, the researchers refused to respond." And I certainly don't have a conflict of interest, read WP:COI. One final piece of advice, talking about conducting a war is a really bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Forgot to ask - have you edited under any other usernames? Doug Weller  talk 12:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

DNA studies sources
Besides the lack of WP:Edit summaries], as a new editor you don't seem to know that we need academic studies for this sort of discussion about DNA. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS to see why I'm telling you this. Thanks and don't get discouraged. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)