User talk:Spiritclaymore

Welcome!
种族主义中文维基百科? 廣府人是汉族人, 如果廣府人不是汉族人比南汉不是汉族. DNA 北汉人有非常大满族/蒙古血, 不是汉族? 客家人和潮州人更不是非汉族 很多南汉是父亲满族但百越母亲, 很多北汉是满族/蒙古父亲但汉的母亲 《人口研究》 - 中国各地DNA数据 http://blog.renren.com/share/288113449/11798480444 http://www.mitbbs.com/bbsann2/news.faq/Military/D12627577752U0/M.1301167424_2.q0/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E5%8F%8A%E4%B8%9C%E4%BA%9A%E4%BA%BA%E8%A1%80%E7%BB%9FDNA%E6%95%B0%E6%8D%AEzz 《中国人种源头分布一览表》_如皋老乡会_人文_西祠胡同 Translation 《中国人种源头分布一览表》 中华文明探源工程初步结果DNA数据

北吴（包括苏南、上海、杭州湾两岸）人父系：汉血统65%，苗瑶族O3d血统10%，棕色人种C血统5%，越人O1血统20%； 北吴人母系：越人50%，棕色人种5%，苗瑶族20%，汉人25%. 南吴（不包括苏南、上海、杭州湾两岸）人父系：汉血统40%，苗瑶族（主要是畲族）O3d血统10%，棕色人种C血统10%，越人O1血统40%； 南吴人母系：越人60%，棕色人种10%，苗瑶族10%，汉人20%. 广东省广府人父系：越人O1血统40%，秦汉汉族血统10%，宋朝汉族血统50%； 广府人母系：越人血统80%，汉族血统20%. 闽南人父系：陈元光系汉族40%，其他汉族10%， 越人O1血统40%，棕色人种C血统10%； 闽南人母系：越人60%，棕色人种20%，汉人20%. 闽北人父系：王审之系汉族50%，苗瑶族（主要指畲族）O3d血统10%，越人O1血统30%，棕色人种CD血统10%； 闽北人母系：越人50%，棕色人种10%，苗瑶族10%，汉人30%. 客家人父系：秦汉汉族10%，宋朝汉族30%，苗瑶族（主要指畲族）O3d血统30%，越人O1血统10%，棕色人种C血统10%； 客家人母系：越人30%，棕色人种10%，苗瑶族30%，汉人30%. 湘人（不包括西北部操官话的地区和东部操赣语的地区）父系：赣人（剔除里面的汉血统成分）血统15%，赣人汉血统15%，其他汉血统30%，苗瑶族O3d血统30%，棕色人种C血统10%； 湘人（不包括西北部操官话的地区和东部操赣语的地区）母系：越人10%，棕色人种10%，苗瑶族50%，汉人30%. 赣人父系：汉血统50%，苗瑶族O3d血统20%，棕色人种C血统10%，越人O1血统20%； 赣人母系：越人30%，棕色人种10%，苗瑶族20%，汉人40%. 江淮人父系：汉血统70%，苗瑶族O3d血统10%，棕色人种C血统5%，越人O1血统15%； 江淮人母系：越人30%，棕色人种5%，苗瑶族25%，汉人40%. 西南人（云南、贵州、广西北部、湖南西北部、湖北西部）父系：赣人（剔除里面的汉血统成分）血统10%，赣人汉血统10%，其他汉血统50%，苗瑶族O3d血统10%，棕色人种C血统10%，藏缅O3/D人血统10%； 西南人母系：藏缅人（主要在四川）20%，棕色人种10%，苗瑶族（主要在湖北）30%，汉人40%. 中原官话区西部父系：汉血统90%，阿尔泰P血统5%，棕色人种CD血统5%； 中原官话区东部父系：汉血统90%，阿尔泰P血统1%，阿尔泰突变之印第安Q血统1%，棕色人种CD血统5%，越人血统3%； 兰银官话区：汉血统85%，阿尔泰P血统10%，棕色人种CD血统5%； 秦晋方言区父系：汉血统85%，阿尔泰P血统10%，棕色人种CD血统5%； 北方官话区之冀鲁官话区：汉血统85%，阿尔泰P血统5%，阿尔泰突变之印第安Q血统2%，棕色人种CD血统3%； 北方官话区之北京-东北官话区：汉血统80%，阿尔泰P血统10%，阿尔泰突变之印第安Q血统3%，棕色人种CD血统3%，越人O1血统4%； 北方官话区之胶辽官话区：汉血统80%，阿尔泰P血统10%，阿尔泰突变之印第安Q血统3%，棕色人种CD血统1%，越人O1血统6%. 藏族父系：棕色人种D血统50%，汉血统炎帝系O3/O3e血统50%； 藏族母系：棕色人种ag/axg血统10%，汉血统炎帝系血统90%； 羌族父系：棕色人种D血统20%，汉血统炎帝系O3/O3e血统80%； 羌族母系：棕色人种ag/axg血统0%，汉血统炎帝系血统100%； 氐族父系：棕色人种D血统100%，汉血统炎帝系O3/O3e血统0%； 氐族母系：棕色人种ag/axg血统10%，汉血统炎帝系血统90%； 新疆蒙古人（西蒙古）父系：阿尔泰P血统60%，雅利安血统10%，汉族血统10%，棕色人种C血统20%； 新疆蒙古人（西蒙古）母系：阿尔泰血统60%，雅利安血统10%，汉族血统10%，棕色人种血统20%； 东蒙古父系：阿尔泰P血统45%，雅利安血统5%，汉族血统40%，棕色人种C血统10%； 东蒙古母系：阿尔泰ab3st血统60%，雅利安fb1b3血统0%，汉族血统30%，棕色人种ag/axg血统10%； 满族（扣除祖先是汉军旗的人）父系：阿尔泰P血统40%，雅利安血统0%，汉族血统40%，棕色人种C血统10%，越人O1血统10%； 满族（扣除祖先是汉军旗的人）母系：阿尔泰ab3st血统40%，雅利安fb1b3血统0%，汉族血统40%，棕色人种ag/axg血统10%，越人血统10%； 北朝鲜父系：阿尔泰P血统30%，雅利安血统0%，汉族血统50%，棕色人种C血统10%，越人O1血统10%； 北朝鲜母系：阿尔泰ab3st血统50%，雅利安fb1b3血统0%，汉族血统20%，棕色人种ag/axg血统15%，越人血统15%； 南韩父系：阿尔泰P血统30%，雅利安血统0%，汉族血统40%，棕色人种C血统10%，越人O1血统20%； 南韩母系：阿尔泰ab3st血统50%，雅利安fb1b3血统0%，汉族血统10%，棕色人种ag/axg血统20%，越人血统20%； 日本阿依努人父系：棕色人种D血统100%； 日本阿依努人母系：棕色人种ag/axg血统100%； 大和民族九州岛父系：阿尔泰P血统30%，汉族血统40%，棕色人种D血统10%，越人O1血统20%； 大和民族九州岛母系：阿尔泰ab3st血统50%，汉族血统10%，棕色人种ag/axg血统20%，越人血统20%； 大和民族本州岛关西父系：阿尔泰P血统30%，汉族血统30%，棕色人种D血统20%，越人O1血统20%； 大和民族本州岛关西母系：阿尔泰ab3st血统40%，汉族血统10%，棕色人种ag/axg血统30%，越人血统20%； 大和民族本州岛关东父系：阿尔泰P血统30%，汉族血统10%，棕色人种D血统40%，越人O1血统20%； 大和民族本州岛关东母系：阿尔泰ab3st血统30%，汉族血统0%，棕色人种ag/axg血统50%，越人血统20%. 廣府人不是漢族人......... 因為漢族人= 亞洲病夫[编辑]

你想廣府人 = 為馬來人種南越族?? 沒問題!!!!!!!!!!! Cantonese people are not Han Chinese Do you know why? 不是中國漢族 為什麼呢？ 1. Japanese kill 30 million Chinese and gang rape 20,000 to 80,000 Chinese women, Manchu kill 50 million Chinese, Mongol kill 60 million Chinese , Mao zedong kill 70 million Chinese ,Jin dynasty kill million Chinese, North Han Chinese killed and conquered 20 times by mongols, manchus, Turkic, Xianbei, Khitan. Japanese used 100,000 Chink women as sex slave and 2000 Taiwanese women as sex slave 2. Chinese make fake products, poison food, poison baby milk, no morals, low class corrupt monkeys, shitting on the floor 3.Han Prostitutes and marry Japanese/Korean men in high number 10 to 1 times 4. Hated around the world 5. Enemies around the world 1. 日本人殺了3000萬中國漢族人輪姦20,000至80,000中國漢族婦女，滿族殺死50萬中國漢族，蒙古殺60萬漢中國，毛澤東殺了70萬中國漢族，晉朝殺萬中國漢族，北漢中國. ......蒙古人，滿族人，突厥，鮮卑，契丹征服北方漢族人的12倍, 義和團運動. 8國輪姦中國漢族女性 （法國，英國，日本，德國，奧地利，美國，匈牙利）. 日本用10萬中國漢族女性性別，台灣2000名婦女的性奴隸 2. 中國使假冒偽劣產品，毒食品，毒嬰兒奶粉. 沒有道德，低階層，腐敗猴子，在地板上拉屎 3. 中國漢族的妓女和日文/韓文結婚的男子在大量10至1 4. 討厭的世界各地的 5. 世界各地的敵人 為什麼廣府人是不是漢族 ???? 為什麼百越?

每年有120,000中國漢族女性在東南亞是妓女南韓國，日本，台灣，香港，澳門， — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.36.173 (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you recently removed some content from History of Hong Kong without thoroughly explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate 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! While it was noted that you gave a brief reason for changing 'some' to 'one', you did not provide any information as to why you deemed it appropriate to delete a valid secondary source and related content from the article. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at History of Hong Kong. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please note that removing sourced content because you have personal objections to it is NOT a valid rationale for its removal. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * And this exactly why wikipedia is extremely bias. You guys only rely on book sources and individual making his own opinions. The estimate for 10,000 aren't considered facts. We have the whole documentary of Japanese invasion of HK including talks about HK rape victims and eyewitnesses -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Af4mdQd5I and they thousands but the highest is 5000 but none of this gets in your heads because all you do is use old sources from google books or article created by some western guy based on old estimates from during ww2.

Spiritclaymore (talk) 3:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Hong Kong
Can you provide references for the HK historian? Thank you NGPriest was here ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to Battle of Hong Kong
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Greenmaven (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Japanese occupation of Hong Kong. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ''Please refrain from changing information from sourced material and changing it in order to instil your personal biases. This has been discussed on my talk page already. Thank you for your co-operation.'' Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at History of Hong Kong. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with the freaking garbage nonsense and misleading western propaganda bullshit article.

What is wrong with adding thousand women? is it not a freaking possibility since it's mention by own wikipedia? As for 10,000 figure we never even mention this figure in HK tv, documentary?>

香港歷史 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2

Talkback
Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

History of Hong Kong article
Please be aware of the 3RR (edit warring) rule. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Attila's personal appearance
I haveasked for a third opinion in this dispute. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Your addition to Huns has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, one of the sources you cited, David Livingstone's "Black Terror White Soldiers" is conspiracy theorist literature, not a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not add material that uses the exact same words found in the cited source. Paraphrase the material, do not plagiarize it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Very well, I will just rephrase it. However the controversial anthropology data of the Huns should at least be edited like it had been on the anthropology wiki page of Turanid race.--Spiritclaymore (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Copyright violations by Spiritclaymore at Huns. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't you help me rephrase it? I don't understand how is this a violation when the anthropology section had been editted since 2014 april until you decided to remove it. ( referring to anthropological data of Huns by István Bóna and Pak Liptak )if it was there for more than half a year why is it okay now to have it? --Spiritclaymore (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It should have been rephrased before it was ever added, and definitely should have been rephrased before being readded. Whoever added it originally violated copyright as well.  Also, you've reverted more than three times, which is edit warring.  Re-adding the material within the next 24 hours will probably result in a block.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It has been rephrased so it's violation anymore. If you don't mind that just edit the data as poor science quality let's not try to be indenial by not mentioning the existence of anthropology data on Huns like it never existed Spiritclaymore (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Attila, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asian. 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) 10:04, 18 October 2014 (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. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Huns. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. The full report is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Physical Anthropology
Physical anthropology from the 1980s is not pseudoscience or outdated. There have actually been recent papers in the field showing similar results albeit with mroe politically correct terminology: " If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a SubSaharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. " http://www.pnas.org/content/103/1/242.full — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation notification
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Spiritclaymore. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)