User talk:Tewdar

Have a look

Have a look at the current version [1] as compared to this one. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief look, Feldman et al. doesn't seem to support "along with Western Hunter Gatherers (WHG), Eastern Hunter Gatherers (EHG) and Western Steppe Herders (WSH)", but it does say Anatolian Early Farmers are the "largest ancestral component in present-day Europeans" but it's pretty much okay. I'd just say what Feldman says probably, since the article is about AHGs, but there isn't really a problem with it apart from other excess ancestry sources missing eg CHG.

"minor gene flow from Iranian/Caucasus and Levantine sources" is fine, might want to distinguish Aceramic and Ceramic Farmers here?

I'm not sure that the domestic animal stuff is necessary background info.

"the relationship of AHG with WHG and Natufian hunter-gatherers is explained by the fact that these populations had a significant contribution from hunter-gatherers associated with the Upper Paleolithic of the Caucasus." - Not sure if this is made explicit in prose in Allentoft et al. I'll take a look at it later.

"The AHG diverged from Caucasus hunter-gatherer around 25,000 years ago." I think Marchi 2022 put this at like 16kya

I'll take a better look later if I get a chance. Is anything particularly bothering you about the changes? Tewdar 11:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly ping for @Fylindfotberserk: Tewdar 11:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of ANE by the IP and rationale provided by them seemed POV to me. Thanks for the explanation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well, the ANE contribution to present day Europeans is indirect, via WSH (and excess EHG in part) so that's basically an improvement. it might be better to just paraphrase Feldman however. Tewdar 11:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tewdar, you also might want to have look at Iranian hunter-gatherers. Wikiuser1314 has done a nice job here, especially in terms of structure and readability. As far as I can see, Fylindfotberserk already has taken notice of it. I especially like the terse "§Europe" section, which I'm sure will make the Teheran IP (who always comments on IE-related pages) cry 😁 –Austronesier (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, IHG and CHG are actually next on my list for the Pleistocene draft article. I'm trying to decide whether to give them their own sections or not. I'm leaning 'split' 😊 Tewdar 12:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at these additions. There seems to be some discrepancies between the text added (phenotype related) and the quote from the reference. Also have a look at [2] [3]. Is this a sock? I mean I see allegations in their talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I took a quick look at this, and I think it's a little bit of a misrepresentation, specifically the gender differences. I'd probably prefer something like: "The study found that local individuals with normal or intermediate skulls, carrying northern or central European ancestry, were most likely (80%) to have blue eyes and blonde hair. In contrast, women with artificially deformed skulls (likely immigrants originating from southeastern Europe, some of whom carried East Asian ancestry) generally had brown eyes and either brown (60%) or blonde (40%) hair. Veeramah et al. note that these immigrant women would have stood out from the local population due to their enlarged crania and their distinct eye, hair, and possibly skin pigmentation."

Something like that, anyway.

I know nothing of sockpuppetry, that's more Austronesier's department! 😂 Tewdar 11:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it, incorporated parts from para you suggested. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Thanks for fixing it. 🙂 Tewdar 18:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for saying what needed to be said in your userpage. 2601:152:300:F8AE:6DB4:2FD6:16C:928D (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? About Wikipedia? 😂 Tewdar 19:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 👍 2601:152:300:F8AE:6DB4:2FD6:16C:928D (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol 😂 Tewdar 21:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going?

Hey! I just thought I'd pop over and say hello, because we only ever seem to interact on the talk page of the Cornwall article and we're usually disagreeing with each other. Despite that, I reckon you're probably pretty decent and thought it might be a good idea to tell you so. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

😂 thanks for stopping by, I appreciate it... I probably can come across as a bit of a dick when I'm talking about my homeland so I'm actually very impressed with your kind gesture here... you seem like a decent chap too, maybe one day we'll find a page to edit together that doesn't get me quite so emotional! Tewdar 18:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could feel us drifting into animosity and it seemed silly to let that happen. I find that talk page discussions don't really encourage friendliness, but if you step away and just have a normal chat it usually sorts things out. If I'm not editing the county articles I'm usually working on an historic house or church or something, so I don't know if we overlap that much, but I certainly wouldn't object to working together!

On the topic of counties, I must admit I'm a bit tired of the overall flag discussion as it's been rumbling on for while, but I have been looking at alternative images for Cornwall and I wondered what you thought of this? I don't want to pre-empt any future discussion, but we could do with having a picture that includes one of Cornwall's major towns and Redruth does happen to fly the flag from its clock tower often. I'd like it if the picture was sunnier and the flag a bit brighter, but in principle do you think something along those lines could work as a compromise? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for clearing the air 🙂 I don't have a lot of time here, but a picture of a town building flying a flag sounds ideal to me... I'll see if i can make or obtain anything better, but a photo like that one would be fine I think... all the best, sorry for being a grumpy asshole🙂 Tewdar 18:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh amazing! There'd have to be a proper talk page discussion before any change, but I'm glad you like it. And there's no need to apologise, I totally get why you're so enthusiastic about Cornwall and I'm sure we'll work well together on the article in the future. See you around, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Biological sex"

Taking this aside here because continuing to discuss it on that page would be forumy. The root of my argument is effectively a relatively straightforward read of Foucauldian epistemology. Effectively all knowledge is socially constructed. That doesn't mean we cannot make value judgements regarding the construction of knowledge but it does mean we should always consider that how we frame the questions that even the most carefully dispassionate science asks operates within a necessarily social context. Your comment about genetic sex is an example of this since the frame of the question becomes one of how one's chromosomal construction aligns to certain social expectations and functions. After all: if there was no socially expected function to the category of "sex" then "sex" would be a meaningless category. Basically if we didn't have the social categories of "man" and "woman" then there'd never be any need to ask what distinguishes them genetically. But this means that the root of inquiry is fundamentally social. As such I have a certain skepticism when editors try to say "oh I'm not talking about gender" and then go on to call someone who calls herself a woman not one. We've had an ongoing and highly vexatious issue with that precise line of argument at Imane Khelif which kind of got nuked via a pretty aggressive moratorium on debate of her gender and it seems that some of the parties who opposed the moratorium are moving the Khelif material to other pages now. That's why I'm concerned about her in specific. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, none of the latest genetics papers seem to mention Foucauldian epistemology when discussing how they determined an individual's genetic sex 🤣. 'The question' for me, in this context, is not "how one's chromosomal construction aligns to certain social expectations and functions", but merely the ratio of X and Y chromosomes to the autosomes. I have no interest in Khelif, her genetic sex, or her gender identity, and as I said, she does not seem to be worth mentioning on that article. Tewdar 14:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

You've been mentioned here. While it's not abou you, any input is appreciated. Thank you, Yacàwotçã (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still no 'oppose all' button, I see... Tewdar 07:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]