Userius
Welcome!
|
May 2016 edit
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a change to the articles Belarusians and Ukrainians, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
Please don't just use a generic edit summary stating "Underhill 2014" to make major content changes to article content. Not only do you need to insert the reference, but it's essential that you provide the page number in order that the content be verifiable. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Haplogroup R1a1 and Haplogroup R1a1a, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Discretionary Sanctions for Race and Intelligence edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Japan/IQ/homicide theory edit
Hi, I had a read through the reference you have been adding to the Japan article. It is a very interesting theory that, as you move from the north to the south of the country, the IQ gets lower and the homicide rate gets higher.
I hope you can understand though that, at the moment, the article mentions nothing about homicide, crime, IQ or intelligence within Japan at all. So adding the sentence you wish to add without any context is going to leave the reader scratching their head. Adding it to a paragraph about suicide, which if I understand the study correctly the results are opposite to that of homicide, with higher rates in the north.
As I've said, the main Japan article doesn't have any mention of crime at all. Given its reputation as a "safe" country, this is quite an omission. There is an article crime in Japan which, with further expansion for context, could include the information you want to add. But even if the crime in Japan was condensed into a section for inclusion in the main article, I am struggling to see how such a specific fact as the one you want to add can be incorporated. But where there's a will there's a way, so let's have a look. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the long explanation. See Appeal to tradition. I propose to move to Crime in JapanUserius (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Minor things edit
- Please note that the template is called {{Main article}}, not "Main", which is actually a redirect to it.
- Please read WP:ERA and refrain from introducing "BC" and "AD" into Judaism-related articles.
- There is a strong consensus on the the talkpage of "Ashkenzic Jews", that there is no need for more genetic studies. If you disagree with this consensus, please make your point on the talkpage, and obtain consensus for introduction of new materials beforehand.
Debresser (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for that errors, I didn't notice them. What do you see as minor things, the mistakes in my edits, or my whole introduction? Is there any consensus against introducing anthropological (not genetic) information in the article? What exactly is the consensus for never updating the genetic section? I have not heard of such a radical block of editing a section, the topics are usually always under correction throughout Wikipedia. Userius (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not like a block. There was a period when the article included detailed information from all kinds of genetic research, and editors started using the article to assess those researches and compare them and all of this in accordance with their personal points of view. So, as you can guess, it became a mess. At a certain point it was decided to have only the more serious researches, and only in short. That consensus was made regarding genetic research, but by the same token should hold for other types of research as well.
- Wikipedia appreciates your contributions, and it is always good to have a new editor on board, so please come to the talkpage and let us know what researches you would like to add to the article, and why you think they are a necessary contribution. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)