User talk:Kush3897

Reliable sources
Hello Kush3897, welcome to Wikipedia. A note about sources. While I can see you have been citing sources for your edits, not all sources are equal, especially when it comes to scientific topics. Preprints, for example, are self-published, preliminary versions of scientific papers submitted to a journal for peer review, so from our point of view they aren't reliable. Another thing to bear in mind is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be high-level summaries for non-specialists. Thus we try to summarise significant points of view in secondary sources like review articles and books. Primary sources, like original research papers, should be used sparingly so as not to slip into original research ourselves or place undue weight on new theories or cutting-edge results that have not yet (and may never) become part of a scientific consensus. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Kush you reverted the paper i posted "for not being peer reviewed" but that paper is being cited by peer reviewed papers and is more credible. This wiki is citing papers form the same authors that are outdated, they literally made that paper to fix some mistakes they've made. Itisme3248 (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Kush3897 has been blocked indefinitely for the abusive use of multiple accounts. You can raise your point in the talk page of the article, other editors will certainly chime in. (Btw, is this about the shelved Lazaridis preprint again?) –Austronesier (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes its about that. Although there are even mistakes in that paper about some other stuff that were corrected by Lazaridis in 2022 peer reviewed papers again, when it comes to the Ancestral North African admix in Natufians it might be the only good one so far. Dzudzuana samples are not publicly available, thats why there are not many papers on that. Itisme3248 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Two things are important here: yes, the Lazaridis preprint has been cited in other papers. If you can show that these citing papers specifically support the points from the Lazaridis preprint that you want to add, I won't object to using the preprint as source. The other thing is: I think you're doing arithmetics based on multiple admixture proportions from one qpGraph diagram, right? Otherwise I can't see how you obtain the 88% vs. 12% ratio. But this is not how it works. If you want to get the deep source admixture for Natufians, you have to refer to the qpAdm ratio in Table S4.2 (with Mbuti as proxy for deep African ancestry). But let's address this in Talk:Natufians for wider input. –Austronesier (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah i was being kinda lazy about not citing the other papers. On the paper the qpAdm model shows 11.2% Mbuti and the rest Dzudzuana, its the same thing.
 * QpAdm_admix_models.png
 * Itisme3248 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)