User talk:Tibatto

Welcome!
Hello, Tibatto, 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 complete 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! - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced edits
Hello. Please do not add translations of names etc, such as in this edit on Bellovesus, or other material without providing a reliable source for your edits. And the same goes for making changes in the article. All material that is added and all changes that are made without providing sources for them can be reverted if challenged. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I corrected my mistake and i will mention my sources next time.

--Tibatto (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Frank DNA
OK, first you were just being obstinate and edit warring, but what you just added is abject nonsense. It is patently ridiculous to claim the Franks exclusively belonged to a single haplogroup. Wikipedia editors don't get to make things up - we also don't get to decide what is interesting, which you have also done.

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Agricolae (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I did a quick check of your "contributions", and i found out that you are mostly deleting other's people work. You must understand that Wikipedia isn't your personal notebook and that you cannot ruin other people's work on a whim. --Tibatto (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Whim has nothing to do with it. One should ruin other people's work if that work violates policy, so don't lecture me, with all of the wisdom of your four months of experience here, for cleaning up other people's messes.  It is not my personal notebook, but it is not your personal playground, where anything that you happen to find interesting gets to go on a page.  If you want a place on the internet where you can put interesting trivia, start a blog or use your facebook page.


 * Now perhaps you can explain how any of what you just said justifies the fact that you added to the page stuff you made up. Agricolae (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "but it is not your personal playground" Indeed, Wikipedia is not my personal property either, this is why i sourced my modifications. "stuff you made up" Are you implying that i've wrote a 200-pages study, then paid several genetecists and archeologists to publish "my stuffs" ? Were the remains in Borgharen burried by me too ? Anyway, i did not break any rules, i have merely posted the result of a study. --Tibatto (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, you fail to understand. Just because someone somewhere wrote something doesn't mean it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article - see WP:UNDUE.  You did not make up the study, but you did make up your interpretation of the study.  It never said that J2* was a Frankish haplotype - that was you.  It never said that the Franks were exclusively J2* - that was you.  It never said it was interesting - that was you.  You did break rules, most notably WP:3RR, which is why I warned you, yet you just did it again. Agricolae (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have never said that "J2 was a Frankish haplogroup" nor that "they belonged exclusively to J2", i said "According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lauwerier et al. (2014) on three Merovingian skeletal remains from present-day Borgharen, Netherlands, the Franks belongded to J2a(2/3) and J2b(1/3)." and later said  "According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lauwerier et al. (2014) on three Merovingian skeletal remains from present-day Borgharen, Netherlands, indivdual N15 belelonged to J2a1b-M67(1/3), N20 to J2b-M102(1/3), the reasearchers were not able to determine the haplogroup of individual N18 but some speculated that he belonged to J2a1b1-M92.". Either you misinterpreted me or you are blatantly lying. --Tibatto (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I accidentally expressed that backwards. I should have said that you had stated: "the Franks belonged exclusively to haplogroup J2" - still, you made this up.  You also said that: "According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lauwerier et al. . . . the Franks belongded to J2a(2/3) and J2b(1/3)."  In the context of a page on the Franks (tribe) and with your addition about exclusivity, I took this as a reference to the group as a whole, not just three specific Franks.  If that was your intent, then this too is made up.  However, it occurs to me now that you might have just meant by 'the Franks' the three stiffs - if that was your intent then it is accurate for two, but still made up for the third, but it would also be completely WP:UNDUE if it didn't refer to the group as a whole.  Agricolae (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I did state that in the "Mythological Origin"-section to emphasise the truthfulness of the Frankish myth, but i have never said that in the "Genetics"-section, furthermore, considering that all Frankish samples are J2, all (analyzed) Franks indeed belonged exclusively to J2. --Tibatto (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, all analyzed Franks are J2 (both of them that were definitively typed), but that is not what you said - it means something entirely different when you leave out the word 'analyzed' and simply say that 'all Franks are J2'. At a minimum this is unsupported, but given what we know about European population genetics, it is also certainly false.  I could add that we can't even say all 'Franks' were Franks - there is disagreement as to the extent these tribes remained homogeneous as they expanded, the degree to which they accrued not only slaves but in some cases whole groups of warriors that reached an accommodation and went along to join in the plunder, making it all the more tenuous to draw conclusions about entire 'tribes' based on two samples at one location.  With your explanation of intent, you reveal yet another problem with your edits.  We shouldn't be adding novel arguments of our own to 'emphasize the truthfulness of the Frankish myth'.  If a published source hasn't made that exact argument, it is not something that we should decide to argue on our own.  Our role is not that of advocate, we do not come up with our own arguments to try too convince people a myth is true - we simply summarize published arguments that have already been made by scholars. Agricolae (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Formal 3RR warning
Your recent editing history at Franks 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.

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. Agricolae (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Tibatto, self-reverting and responding to the above discussion might help you avoid a block. --Neil N  talk to me 00:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 01:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)