User talk:Pebble101

Please never restore material that has been deleted as a copyright violation, instead ask the person who deleted it why. I've been doing this for years, and have clarified both at Slakr's talk page and Talk:Haplogroup F-M89#Copyvio. Doug Weller (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, yet you have used same sengupta study to source F2 while ignoring F*-M89 at 5.2% in over all Indian population according to the study under 'The Phylogeny of South Asian Y-Chromosome Binary HGs.

I will add F*-M89 5.2% in India along with the source in F*

Also, under 'Origins' there is no source for F2 being found in all those groups mentioned on the list expect for Lahu people in sengupta study and 9.3% in unspecified ethnic groups. That's why i'm changing it to just F, since they most linkly carry other F clads too.

I haven't used any sources, that would be someone else. Doug Weller (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, but you seem to have moved the source from 'origins' to F2, which can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_F-M89&diff=685400312&oldid=684059217

This addition looks immature to me, i'll simplify it with source.

Pebble101, Doug Weller is one of the seniormost editors on Wikipedia. It is not appropriate to address him like this.

Doug is only trying to enforce policy, WP:COPYVIO and WP:RS. He is not claiming to be a subject expert. I don't find anything inappropriate in his edits given the COPYVIO issue. You are welcome to rewrite the text so that COPYVIO is removed.

Please also make an effort to discuss issues on the article talk pages instead of reinstating material that has been reverted. You should not be putting long conversations in the edit summaries. See WP:BRD for what to do when an edit is reverted.

We have been quite patient with you, assuming good faith. From now on, I intend to report any policy violations that you make, including edit-warring. So please be careful. All the best. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm guessing that Pebble101 doesn't understand what I did. A paper whose first editor is named Sengupta was used as a reference for both the copyvio I removed and, despite what Pebble101 says, for FT - that's what the "<ref name="Sengupta"/>" in "**'''F2''' (M427, M428) - among [[Lahu people]] (China).<ref name="Sengupta"/> means. But as I'd removed the entire source details with my edit, I moved them to define "<ref name="Sengupta"/>" - otherwise the reference would have been broken. The reference was ways there. And you are still doing original research in changing sourced material to just "F" on your assumption. I'm not at all surprised to find that sourced material is inaccurate, people often change sourced material without looking to see wht the source says.

Statements such as "Please Note: The preceding estimate uses a 2008 paper as cite, while 2015 papers are rapidly improving knowledge. More up-to-date sources (including Wikipedia!) may show (46,000 to 52,000) years ago for the TMRCA of F-M89, near western India." have no place in an encyclopedia - it's just your personal observation and once again, you can't use us as a source. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comments at that article are WP:NOR#original research and not encyclopedic in any case. Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The references for genetics articles have very long lists of authors. Putting them inline in the article text makes it harder to read the text. So I have been moving them to the bottom (the so-called list-defined references). You can see this on Genetic history of South Asia and Haplogroup F-M89. Please follow this convention from now on, i.e., do not add full references in the middle of article text. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Indian people, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Caution for undiscussed removal of cntent. Your edit removed a lot more than just information about the caste system. Discuss it on the talk page of the article, and get support from other editors before removing it again. Thomas.W ^talk 11:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Indian people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're being given this warning since it's obvious that you are the same user as the IP-hopper. If you wish I can file a sock puppet report, and let the people at WP:SPI deal with it, or you can simply stop removing content without prior discussion. The choice is yours. Thomas.W ^talk 11:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

See above discussion on this talk page about Copyright-violation sourced study with User:Doug_Weller regarding sengupta study, which was removed by himself. I'm only undoing the copyright viliation in good faith the sources were added by me and i'm only undoing my mistakes.

It was removed by user User:Doug_Weller in other places as well due to copyright violation regarding the original study which was sourced through copy-paste - It's should be removed until the topic is resolved. Also here is the conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slakr#Pebble101 that was discussed. I hope this clear things.

• Judging by the page history and the diffs the material that you have repeatedly removed is NOT the same material that Doug Weller removed, the copyrighted material he removed was in fact added by you, as a number of related IPs. Thomas.W ^talk 12:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, The entire thing was removed in other pages as well! you can ask User:Doug_Weller about it. I only removed the rest because it was all sourced by sengupta study through copy-paste, which he also pointed out as copyright violation here aswell. I din't know it would be a copy-right violation then.

The edit itself was created and sourced by me but i would like to wait until User:Doug_Weller, me and few others resolve this copy-right violation and content source, that's why i removed it in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs)

Pebble101, please sign your posts, otherwise pings don't work. But to clarify, what you are saying is that you removed all the content you added as an IP or as yourself because that may contain the same problem that Doug Weller identified with what he removed? —SpacemanSpiff 12:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I just made a post here regarding that issue - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pebble101

I can't long in at Uni during the day but do make edits logged on past 5 when i'm home. I have also mentioned this to many users on here. I'll make sure to leave my user name in summery when i do. Pebble101 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• The genetic material does seem to have copyvio concerns. For example, the sentence "the presence of ..." is lifted verbatim from the source. However, that does not explain the removal of the material from other sections. Pebble101, technically, including your IP edits, you're already at 4 reverts. Whatever the reason, please curb your tendency to edit war because you're looking at longer term - soon heading toward indefinite - blocks. --regentspark (comment) 12:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ask Doug Weller about it, he removed it everywhere and the entire section was created and sourced by me. But, I'm willing to wait until we resolve this copyvio issue.

Here is our discussion on the topic and he points out flaws regarding source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slakr#Pebble101 I agree with him on some of those Pebble101 (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've responded to you at the SPI, but I'll say the same thing here, to make sure you see it. To say that some of the IPs are from you (how are we supposed to know which the some are?), and to tell users about it when they confront you isn't enough. I for one don't blame you for editing logged out when it's impractical to log in, but what you need to do, in the interest of transparency and honesty, is to say it's you ("This is Pebble101") in the edit summary every time you edit from an IP from now on. That would clear things up. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Thomas.W ^talk 12:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I should have explained myself better instead of edit warring and getting blocked, sorry. The genetic section that you keep reverting back was removed in good faith due to copyright violation and unclear sources as pointed out by Doug Weller. That section itself was created and sourced by me and i only removed it as it was pointed out in detail about it being copyright violation and unclear sources.

Here is a list of flaws on copyright violation and unclear sources as pointed out by Doug Weller, which you keep reverting back. I agree with him on some of those flaws.

The version you have reverted back contains copyvio and unclear sources which is not mentioned in actual source. If you still have any doubts regarding this topic, you should leave a message on Doug Weller talk page and we can discuss it further. I was only undoing my mistakes, which was in good faith. I hope this clears things. Pebble101 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)