User talk:Arch Hades

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Arch Hades, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Yamnaya culture did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} @Doug Weller: What exactly in my edit of the Yamnaya culture do you think contradicted wikipedia's verifiability policy? And my edit has not been reverted. Arch Hades (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To address a specific user, you can use something like the {{ping}} or {{reply}} templates. I've turned off the {{help me}} template since you were asking more of a content or response question than a question about how to edit the encyclopedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We often see people adding material to cited text that isn't in the source. You've at least used an edit summary to explain yourself, but to I'm not sure I could find it, although I may have looked at the wrong source You've added "paternal" and I can't find that in the source.[1] Thanks for finding the paper that you linked on my page, you can use that to rewrite the bit I deleted. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Well you can't make inferences about a population's overall origin using only paternal/Y chromosomal haplogroups. The sentence i edited read "Unlike their Khvalynsk predecessors however, the Y-DNA of the Yamnaya is exclusively of EHG and WHG origin. This suggests that the leading clans of the Yamnaya were of EHG and WHG origin.". Paternal needs to be put in there for accuracy's sake. Another thing is, reading the source you sent me. I don't see that sentence at all in the source, so maybe the entire sentence should just be deleted? That's up to you. Arch Hades (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you suggest that on the talk page, I'll be too busy for a while and several people have noticed my edits (I know because of "notifications"). Doug Weller talk 17:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 05:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for giving me a heads up. My edit on Richard Lynn was pointing out that his IQ scores for Italian IQ were not actual IQ scores and were instead "calculated" IQs based upon 2006 PISA score data. That's not controversial at all. I didnt make any assertion that this was a reliable or unreliable method. Arch Hades (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just routine. I've self-alerted myself. Alerts need to be renewed every year, otherwise it's assumed you've forgotten. I try to give them impartially, I often don't even know if someone has a pov on the subject. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]