User talk:212.195.123.143

March 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jōmon period, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Disrupt? The ref paper https://www.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/powell_rose.htm is an OSTEOLOGICAL STUDY on the Kennewick Man (see the ref's title) , based on craniometry, odontology etc. It NEVER mentions ONCE genetic testing,the authors NEVER even claimed their study was based on genetics, nor did they perform genetic testing, yet some editor on wikipedia decided, for personal reasons, to mislead the readers and claims the study proved the "genetic relationship" of Jomon with Southeast Asians, yet this is not what is mentioned in the study whcih only mentions data obtained through craniometry, odontology etc but not genetics, and that the Jomon and Ainu have (verbatim quote) "biological affinity" with Southeast Asians. The paper mentions SCANS, 3D polymer reproductions based on other scans, etcc Anyways, their conclusions on Kennewick Man's origins are today officialy refuted, see Kennewick Man paragraph , but YOU sir, are erasing without any reason my edits. In a nutshell the outdated osteological paper in question (from 1999) claimed the Kennewick Man had affinities with Southeast Asians and Polnesians, whereas the modern consensus based on recetn DNA testing says the Kennewick Man has closest DNA to Native Americans, it suffuces to read the concerned article and all the REFERENCES ON SAID WIKIPEDIA PAGE for the Kennewick Man. Enough useless feuds based on pseronal ideas, I post only info as given by the studies, it is a habit on wikipedia to see people DEFORM info and give instead a a DISTORTED personal interpretation. YOU sir, are distupting the Jomon page by ABUSIVELY erasing my edits. I hope some other wikipedia moderators and or admins will read this and take adequate measures against such behaviour.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

• You could have tried to make your argument on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

My arguments were written on my talk page, but you did not take the time to read them and you abusively banned me from editing. Arguments were also added to almost each edit I did on the Jomon page. In the end, I simply proposed (suffices to read my last edit summary) to supress the sentence referencing the outdated study which is completely useless compared to the recent DNA testing on Jomon and Ainu , DNA test wchih are detailed in the article. If you wanted to talk about osteological theories , you should have referenced the article BEFORE the genetics section, but honestly , this OSTEOLOGICAL study on Kennewick Man is simply noe worth the trouble, first of all it doesnt mention any DNA study and everything is based on morphological comparisons, worse, their conclusions on Kennewick Man are debunked by DNA tests performed between 2013-2015 (see wiki page). What baffles me is your refusal to accept the Kennewick Man study does NOT speak of genetic relations but "biological affinity" based on craniology, odontology etc, yet you decide to keep the words "GENETIC RELATION" associated with the outdated osteological study in the Jomon article.

• ARTICLE talk page. My involvement with the article is not about content; it's about your behavior. You are barking up the wrong tree. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

My behaviour? It's your behaviour of banning people abusively from wikipedia that should be considered, and quickly, I hope wikipedia admins read this page!! I saw that a wikipedia editor wrote "Jomon shows genetic relationship closest to Southeast Asians" , referencing an outdated OSTEOLOGICAL review on the Kennewick Man ( not the right topic by the way...) that does not contain ANYTHING remotely related to DNA testing anywhere in the text (available online), worse, the study has been proven wrong about the Kennewick Man.It is not a personal opinion, the whole Kannewick Man article on wikipedia with its dozens of referneces So it is UNACCEPTABLE to have the word "GENETIC" concerning a study that does not concern DNA testing but osteological studies (alas you don't know the difference), the sentence by the way is not even correct it says "Jomon SHOWS", when it should be "Jomon SHOW" without an S, since it is the Jomon people, not the Jomon period. People like you should not be allowed to moderate on wikipedia, your abusive decisions are based on NOTHING and you have not put forward the slightest argument and continuously refused to discuss the subject in question. The wisest option would be to simply delete the passage, as an outdated osteological study on Kennewick Man has absolutely nothing to do with the DNA testing of Jomon or Ainu, at best it could be mentioned in the beginning of the article as a suggestion made by researchers based on morphological comparisons , which were wrong on certain points but valid on other aspects, further demonstrated by modern DNA testing (DNA tests shows the study is wrong anbout Kennewick Man but partially right about Jomon/Ainu), alas you lack any understanding of the subject. I hope your abusive behaviour will not go unnoticed.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

212.195.123.143 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Dmon_period#Genetics article contains misleading and inaccurate information in the sense that it takes more or less valid information (in the sense that Jomon people do have in certain limits genetic ties with Southeast people but that is not where the haplogroup comes from originally, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_D-M55 , it comes from Central Asia) but the 1999 dated reference http://www.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/powell_rose.htm linked to the sentence "Jomon shows closest genetic relationship to Southeast Asians rather than western Eurasian people" in the wikipedia article for Jomon Period has absolutely no relation with any DNA testing whatsoever, since it is a purely osteological review of the Kennewick Man (a paleoamerican) and much worse said study made several crucial mistakes concerning the ties of various people with said Kennewick Man (this infamous osteological study claimed erroneously the Kennewick Man had affilitation solely to Southeast Asians and Polynesians and they also denied ties with "American Indians"), yet everything is explained in detail on the wikipedia Kennewick Man page, with multiple refs, which clearly state that the DNA testing from 2012-2015 shows a GENETIC relation between Kennewick Man and Native American People more than anyone else...and that previous osteological "studies" boasting outrageous theories were not accurate at all and are now debunked officially. There is no Jomon DNA testing nor Jomon DNA data being compared in this study, once again it suffices to read that infamous paper instead of speculating on it, it is based on craniometric variance , not DNA samples . Logically, such a reference in the Genetics section of the wikipedia article (speaking of the Jomon Period article) should be deleted or at least the context of said study should be explained to not mislead the readers, which is what I did on multiple occasions. It is VERY common on wikipedia that editors write personal opinions or personal research supposedly based on a reference that has little or nothing to do, doesn't contain the informatio in question or worse sometimes states the opposite (as a pertinent example, see my edit on wikipedia page of D3O, where I corrected an editor who claimed there were only "traces" of a product when in fact the US patent referenced in the article mentioned an ideal proportion of 10-35% ...). Every time, I did explain my edits in the edit summary section of the Jomon Period article, yet it was tagged as "disruptive editing" by moderator Drmies and the latter abusively banned me, deleting also in the process methodically and hastily all my edits (without once reading my numerous explanations, simply ignoring them ) . I am literally tired of being obliged to explain over and over the same thing , anyone reading my talk page and my edit summaries can see this for themselves. Reasons were given, but the moderator Drmies outrageoulsy claimed that I "should have talked about it on the talk page". 212.195.123.143 (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The problem with edit warring is even if you are right you are wrong. Please feel free, once your block has expired, to discuss the merits of your preferred version on the article talk page and without further revert warring. If you instead choose to resume edit warring, you may find yourself blocked for longer. DrMies is an ArbCom-- you could learn a lot from him and should probably heed his advice. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I understand Drmies is your friend, but you should have read my arguments, instead your simply ignore them as well and claim that I have not explained my reasons. I DID explain the reasons of my edits every time in the edit summary, but it was repeatedly ignored by Drmies who considered it "disruptive editing". To consider something "disruptive editing", you need to understand the subject, but the subject was constantly ignored. "you should have talke about it in the talk page" was written just after the ban... isn'tt that strange? Read my talk page, before the ban when it was just about being warned, I did explain IN DETAIL my reasons , again. Honestly it is not a question of edit warring since when a sentence in a wikipedia article does not correspond to the reference cited ( as it is supposed to vaildate the former), it is truly a form of minor editing issue to correct said sentence, after all, the real problem was the original wikipedia editor who introduced this sentence with the out of topic reference to "validate " it, not my edits. I explained the study was solely about osteological studies and testing, while the sentence in the wiki article specifically led the reader to believe it was about genetic studies (which is not the case), I proposed finally, just before being banned, as the best solution, to overall simply delete the passage and the inadequate reference, the article contained already dozens of DNA tests and conclusions concerning the matter. This is everything expet disruptive editing... of course you will ignore also this, defending you volunteer friend and boast his "qualities". Truth is the sentence I deleted just before being banned is really the thing that disrupted the article, since it reintroduces a topic that is out of context (outdated Kennewick Man study in a Jomon article about haplogroups when the Kennewick Man subject is not even mentioned once ??), as a conclusion to a paragraph dedicated to genetic studies(let's not even mention the fact that said study is officially refuted today, of course you refused to get a look at both the study and the Kennewick Man wikipedia page I linked, how convenient) ..... Reasons were given, and I am sorry to say that you cannot put forth the "you should have explained your reasons on the talk page" when reasons have been put forth -in detail- both in edit summary and on my own talk page even though it concerned minor edits, also if everyone started to explain their smallest edits on the talk page no edition would take place, the talk page would end up looking like a forum if it is not reserved for more in depth edits. I though it was a wikipedia rule : minor editing and or small evident corrections = brief explanation in edit summary, while major editing = explain your reasons in detail on talk page. In our case it is about a minor edit with a simple correction. 212.195.123.143 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. So you were not unblocked because Drmies is my friend? Nope. Present your arguments on the talk page. Of the article Once you are unblocked. While blocked, please read up on WP:3RR. The only reason you have access to your talk page is to appeal the block. Casting aspersions does not fit those criteria. Careful lest someone remove it for disruption.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, so if a moderator such as Drmies sees something that he either does not comprehend or something that displeases him personally , he can then revert more than three times (since he has that privilege) , inciting the editor who made the correction to undo said mod's hastily decided deletions, which will inevitably end up with a ban. Astute and convenient. As for disrupting, I am still waiting for PROOF that I "disrupted" anything. The only disruption here was that lousy and especially NOT verified assertion that oddly made its way to the article £the sentence about the "genetic" relation) without ever being noticed nor deleted (which shows often people have faith in the associated refs but seldom read them to see if they really correspond to the article's assertion, not judging the ref but its relation to the content of the wiki article's passage in question of course). The ref could at least been changed for a valid one, but it seems this "Kennewick Man" study holds a special place in Drmies' heart for obscure reasons. Last time I checked, posting refs that do NOT correspond to the assertion in the article is not permitted according to wikipedia rules as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Good_references Good reference "A citation must verify the statement in the text. To verify the statement "Mike Brown climbed Mt. Everest", you cannot rely on a general reference about Mt. Everest or a reference on Mike Brown. You need to cite a source that directly supports the statement about his achievement. " This rule is not respected in the Jomon Period article on wikipedia, in the passage mentioned multiple times over and over . I explained in detail in my various edit summaries, how the ref was about an osteological study by the US government yet the wikipedia article claimed there was a genetic relation, relation that was not established by the ref in question as the only relation put forth by the study was morphological, according to what the authors themselves explained was based solely on variance in craniometry and ondontology data but never DNA tests which are completely absent from the text . Simple as that and does NOT require permission from talk page. As for your tongue in cheek THREATS about removing from me the privilege of explaining myself when normally I should be rendered "silent" during the whole ban period, it speaks volumes ... You are insinuating that I am "disrupting" my own talk page. Fabulous! 212.195.123.143 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

---