User talk:Youngdro2

Cemetry survey
First to begun with Khazaria com is self published cite which by Wikipedia definition of reliable sources can not be used for editing.--Tritomex (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The link I provided,, is simply a page that has collected a bunch of sources and pasted quotes/excerpts from these various sources on their own page (so khazaria.com itself is not making these claims they are simply citing other sources and again giving excerpts from those original sources).

"Based on surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones, priests represent approximately 5% of the estimated total male world Jewish population of roughly 7 million" an excerpt from: Michael F. Hammer, Karl L. Skorecki, Sara Selig, Shraga Blazer, Bruce Rappaport, Robert Bradman, Neil Bradman, P. J. Warburton, Monica Ismajlowicz. "Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests." Nature 385(6611) (January 2, 1997): 32-33.

Again someone should include something about what the estimates are for the amount of Jewish males with the last name Cohen (modern "Cohanim", even though this doesn't play any active role in the modern religion of Judaism today) especially as the section on the Levites again notes that the Ashkenazi Levites are thought to be make up about 4% of the overall Ashkenazi population.Youngdro2 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Genetic studies on Jews. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Evildoer187 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor "tritomex" already put the page back to how it was, i.e. with no mention of the debate about Zoossmann-Diskin's study either from any of his critics or his responses to said critics. Again if the editor "evildoer" wants to include a sentence trying to "knock" the research of Zoossmann-Diskin, saying it uses "limited data", the page then has to (to be fair) include Zoossmann's response to that and other charges some have made about his work: i.e. "It is likely then that sampling more individuals, which represent more of the variation of the investigated populations, is far more important than typing many markers." and "It seems therefore, that good characterization of the genetic relationships between populations can be achieved by a small number of good unique-event-polymorphisms." And also the third "Author's response" Zoossmann-Diskin, Ph.D. makes in response to the reviewer named Dr. Qasim Ayub.

It seems user "tritomex" has "fixed" the situation for now and is just having the article state what Zosssmann-Diskin said in his study without any critique against him being mentioned (which then means one doesn't need to mention Zoossmann's response to said critique in order to be fair and give Zoossmann a chance to respond to any charges against him and allow him to make counterclaims like he did by saying studies by Atzmon and Behar are incorrect and error-filled because they use small samples "as small as 2-4 individuals".Youngdro2 (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Genetic studies on Jews. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; and you have broken 1RR  in the article The Invention of the Jewish People--Tritomex (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

People who don't like the views of Zoossmann-Diskin and Eran Elhaik, Ph.D. are trying to block them from being mentioned. They are engaging in clear activist editing. The only barrier to not including Elhaik's paper in particular was that until now no journal had published it and it was only previously in arXiv as a preprint ; that barrier has been removed and it is now published in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution  meaning it must be cited here unless these editors are being allowed to "overrule" a professional journal?!Youngdro2 (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And none of this allows you to break 1RR. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Shlomo Sand shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Shlomo Sand
Please do not game the 3RR restriction, as you did today at Shlomo Sand. Doing so is considered a continuation of your edit war, and may result in your being blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I simply deleted material that had nothing to do with the Khazar hypothesis, why aren't the moderators making sure for fairness to include material from among others Zoossmann-Diskin (if the largely non-Khazar related statements of Ostrer are going to be splashed all over the article?!) And Ostrer's again largely non-Khazar related quotes are allowed (Zoossmann-Diskin's again for some reason aren't) and yet the study of Eran Elhaik specifically dealing with the Khazar hypothesis is being blocked as supposedly "not relevant" ! This is absurd and even editor "Zero0000" has noted editors such as "Tritomex" have resorted to new ridiculous charges such as claiming that "Elhaik's work isn't a 'study'!" because they can no longer simply say "it can't be included because it is only a preprint on arXiv"Youngdro2 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The same holds true for The Invention of the Jewish People. Try it again and you'll find yourself blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In answer to your question, I recommend you read WP:POINT. I also recommend you participate in the discussion at Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Eran Elhaik's study could not possibly be any more relevant to the pages you mentioned (Elhaik even mentions Sand's book and thus Shlomo Sand himself numerous times in his research paper itself). And and the new claims being used by some to try to "block" Elhaik's paper from being included, now that the old arXiv 'preprint' barrier has been removed, have even been strongly criticized by editor "Zero0000". Also Zoossmann-Diskin's papers are removed, but comments from Ostrer (including in the past from newspapers) are allowed to sit uncontested (even when they go above and beyond just the Khazar hypothesis itself as was the charge in some cases against the positioning of Zoossmann-Diskin's quotes)? How exactly is this fair?!Youngdro2 (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)