User talk:Dealmeida87

Welcome!

Hello, Dealmeida87! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 14:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

December 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Population history of Egypt. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept

I and the other editors who have had to deal with this same issue elsewhere are not acting out of some racial prejudice but simply because that's how Wikipedia works. We have a policy of no original research: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. The Harem paper is not directly about the population of Egypt but is very specifically aimed at establishing the relationship between the mummies. There are also endless problems in cherry-picking material from a genetics paper, we should only use the discussion/summary section. And although this is a different issue, I don't believe that the paper mentioned "sub-Saharan". You even more or less admit in your edit summary that you were using this to make an argument, ie to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gourdine et al

As you can see at Talk:DNA history of Egypt this paper has been brought up by another editor. Searching for a copy to help them I discovered that it's still a work in progress, now in its third version on a preprint service. Thus it fails WP:VERIFY as it isn't reliably published yet. I've had to remove it. I regret dismantling your work this way but it's simply a policy issue. You could challenge me at WP:RSB but as it's part of our core policy.... Doug Weller talk 16:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant WP:RSN - please put your money where your mouth is - you're happy to make up disgusting falsehoods about me but not to keep complaining and saying I'm wrong without getting input from other experienced editors. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for calling someone a white supremacist several times, when your interpretation of "white supremacist" means "does not agree with me". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this happens again, it will be indefinite. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>I endorse this block and came here to do the same thing. If this recurs, the next block is likely to be permanent. Acroterion (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just about "disagreeing", because everyone has the right to disagree about anything. It is about using the status of administrator to censor information properly referenced, just because he disagrees with the information entered. I don't think it's the right way to proceed. But you command here and I will resign to the block.

Dealmeida87 (talk)

I would add that this administrator, Doug Weller, proceeds in this way - censoring information that he disagrees with or dislikes - in a systematic way. Observe him. There is a lot of really false information here to be suppressed. There is no need to waste time censoring the plurality of legitimate points of view on the most varied subjects. This only impoverishes Wikipedia. Dealmeida87 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting bad edits is never censorship. Saying crazy things as you did on my talk page on the other hand is harassment presumably aimed at silencing me. Note I'm not saying you are crazy, just that the things you accuse me of are. None of the actions you complain of were in my administrative role. The blocking I do of Nazis, anti-Semites, Islamophobes, racists of any stripe is for me an important part of my role here. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you may not be crazy, just incompetent. On my talk page you wrote "My contribution, in this case too, has been arbitrarily reversed by you." This was about an edit to Ham (son of Noah) where I inadvertently reverted the editor who actually reverted you, then restored his edit. I wasn't planning to edit that article at all. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad editions, for you, mean "editions whose content I don't like".

E1b1a was found in Egyptian mummies, according to peer-reviewed study (Hawass et al., 2012), and you censored this information.

Keita (anthropologist) and Anselin (archaeologist), researchers on Egypt who are very experienced and respected, along with JP Gourdine (also respected and experienced geneticist), made harsh criticisms of the study of Abusir's mummies and you censored this information that I inserted in the article about the history of Egyptian DNA. In the latter case, under the claim that it is a pre-print, your censorship disregarded Wikipedia's own rules on self-published content, which can be considered reliable if "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Isn't that the case with Keita and Anselin?

And in the case of "ham", your purpose was to revert my edition, without realizing that another user had already done this.

My edits aren't bad, you don't like them and don't want them to be made public. For this reason, you censor them systematically, each time under a different excuse. And I'm not the only Wikipedia user to notice this.

I don't censor anything here, I just try to contribute so that there are multiple points of view in the articles.

I don't know what your views on Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Nazism, but your position on African history and African authors is quite clear. And I insist that it's unfortunate that a Wikipedia administrator prevents articles from being enriched with good information and new points of view just because they attack your personal preferences. Dealmeida87 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. At "ham" I was simply looking at the edit and my mouse slipped, there clearly was no purpose. I made a mistake and fixed it. Your other charges are just as baseless. Yes, I removed the preprint and as a courtesy, wasted I'm sure, since you months later have decided you know better, raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Do preprints qualify as self-published sources we allow?. I removed your cherry of text from the Hawass article, there's a reason we ask editors to use the summary or discussion section of journal articles. I didn't touch the material you added starting with "Other studies, however, have shown a wide predominance of Near Eastern lineages related to Islamic expansion". I probably would have left the Gourdine stuff except for the use of raw uninterpreted data (which is the cherry-picking point). In every case there are discussion boards where you could raise your issues instead of making unfounded personal attacks. And yes, bad editors pushing a pov do sometimes have trouble with me and other experienced editors. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please shorten that quote?

It's 295 words, it should not be more than 220 for copyright reasons. thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, which quote are you referring to? Dealmeida87 (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hi Dealmeida87! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Genetic history of Egypt several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Genetic history of Egypt, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Donald Albury 18:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Genetic history of Egypt. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Donald Albury 20:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your revert today at Genetic history of Egypt counts as edit warring. You need to take your concerns about the content of the page to Talk:Genetic history of Egypt. Please read the advice at the BRD page. If you continue to edit war you will be blocked from editing for longer periods. - Donald Albury 15:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Donald. Okay. Please note, however, that user Ario1234 has repeatedly (I believe three times already) undoed this contribution of mine, accusing me of "original research" when, in fact, the information I'm inserting appears in a graph displayed in the main text of the study by Morez Jacobs et al., and I even included a direct link to that graph. It's Ario1234 who wants to cherry-pick, and I ask that you watch him, as he'll likely revert my insertion again. I've tried to resolve situations like this via the talk page, but it has zero practical effect, and everything always remains as is. Given the above, I request that 1) user Ario1234 also be alerted and, if necessary, punished in his edit war, and 2) that, if possible, a Wikipedia moderator decide whether the information I'm inserting can or cannot remain in the article. I think it should remain, as it is information contained in a graph in the study, as I've already considered. Thank you in advance.

Dealmeida87 (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep inserting your own interpretations based on an apparent bias and possibly because you don't understand the paper. Please just report what the paper says, thanks. You are the one who started this 'edit war'. Ario1234 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "my own interpretation," but rather the only possible interpretation: in the ADMIXTURE analysis contained in the main text of the study, the Morocco_MN sample has a largely predominant khaki color, which is associated with the Moroccan Epipaleolithic, while the light blue color associated with the Neolithic Levant constitutes a minority component.^[1] I won't waste my time responding to your insinuation of bias when you're the one deleting information you apparently don't like. And you're the one who initiated the revert to the data I entered - which, I repeat, is included in the main study text -, so you're the one who started the edit war. Finally, it is I who ask you: stop cherry-picking information from the study.Dealmeida87 (talk) Dealmeida87 (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss the content of the article is the talk page, Talk:Genetic history of Egypt. Open a discussion there, and remain civil. I will also say that insisting that your interpretation of any source is the "only possible" interpretation will not help your efforts. You would surprised at what editors can disagree on in Wikipedia. If a discussion on the talk page cannot resolve the dispute, there are further steps listed at the policy page WP:Dispute resolution that may be taken. Always remember that writing Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and no one individual has the final say on anything (at least since Jimmy Wales stepped back from his early role). Donald Albury 16:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't lack civility; I simply responded proportionately to an accusation that I was making edits based on my own interpretation (not in the sense of it being one of the possible interpretations, but in the sense of it being a simply wrong interpretation; "Please just report what the paper says"), further insinuating that I'm biased and that I didn't understand the study. If I don't have the final say, neither does Ario1234 (and as I mentioned, he reverted my edit several times and didn't use the talk page either). When I say that there is no other possible interpretation, it is not because I am the owner of the truth, but simply because, in my opinion, the graph is very clear (in addition, note that Ario1234 does not provide any alternative interpretation of the graph, limiting himself to excluding information about it, as if it did not exist, but it is in the main text of the study!). However, yes, I know I don't have the final say, so much so that I contacted you asking that, if possible, a moderator decide the disagreement if it persists (see my penultimate message here). And I've accepted corrections to my edits several times, because I've convinced myself that another user has brought a better understanding than I did. Sincerely and respectfully, I see no reason for this reprimand, and even less so that it was directed only at me. But, ok, I will follow your instructions, and I hope Ario1234 and other users do the same.Dealmeida87 (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User Conflict - Population history of Egypt Neutrality and Balance

Hi @Dealmeida87,

There is a recent user carefully omitting and deleting academic work to present a selective view of Egyptian population origin. May I ask you support with the user talk and overseeing the page for future as it seems this user will be persist on disruptive editing.

Regards, WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WikiUser4020! Thank you for contacting me. The Population history of Egypt page is watched by me and I saw that these changes were made. I intended to reinsert the deleted sections and report the issue on the talk page, but I didn't have time to do so. I saw that you restored some deleted sections, but some are still pending, particularly those related to studies of limb proportions (-9,174 characters, yesterday), which he claim are irrelevant but, indeed, continue to be widely used in studies of population affinities and phenotypic affinities between populations. If you could reinsert these sections into the article as well, I would be grateful.

Best regards, Dealmeida87 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dealmeida87 No problem at all.

Yep, I only make edit occasionally and largely retired from active use. However, I know AE and related pages are heated forums. Certain users with specific views will tend to omit/misrepresent or delete academic publications. I will try and add some of the content. I will raise the issue with the user on talk page but do monitor and seek other related users for consensus building otherwise disruptive editing with that user and other editors in future will do the same in future. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Morez Jacobs. Fig. 2: Genetic ancestry of the Nuwayrat genome.