User talk:69.157.107.88

Welcome!

Howdy, 69.157.107.88, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.

---

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• For Wikipedia policies and guidelines see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
• Find everything in the Directory.
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• Introduce yourself at the new user log.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
• If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
• To Upload Images with the correct Copyright tags.
• Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be Bold!!

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Nareklm 02:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add POV to other peoples user pages, thanks David D. (Talk) 22:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. . [1] Alun 07:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cut the trolling. This is the only warning I'm going to give you. Settle down or be blocked, please. Luna Santin 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I will very probably block you, the next time I see you make a personal attack -- there's no justification for it. Please work out your differences within policy and in line with the dispute resolution process. It's very important to keep a cool head whenever possible, taking breaks from editing if needed. If a single editor or group is truly a persistent problem, consider a request for comment regarding their behavior, report to the admin noticeboard, or even filing a request with the Arbitration Committee. If a given person truly is abusing Wikipedia, reacting as you have will only play into their hands, so please do reconsider. Luna Santin 11:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. :) If you have any questions, I'll answer as soon as I'm able. Luna Santin 11:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

epf, many anthropoligists have linked the people of wales, cornwall and even people living in parts of scotland and ireland to the people of iberia (usually the basques).

The roman general tacitus linked the Silures, a tribe of south wales to the people of iberia for their dark complexions and curly dark hair, this is even in oppenheimers new book. Many victorian and past aswell as modern anthropoligists have linked the peoples of certain regions where r1b is high (though not all such as central ireland) to the peoples of iberia often without the knowledge of a genetic link (in the case of victorian and other times).

I'm not saying all the high r1b percentages found in the british isles correlates with a more iberian look (eg the people of central ireland are 90% r1b yet almost entirely have black hair blue eyes and very pale skin and occasionally red hair).

I'm sure the paleolithic and pre younger dryas migrants from spain may have somehow adapted to the harsh conditions of the british isles and lack of sunlight wheras the mesolithic and later migrants were probably less likely too.) there are some mutations on r1b that are exclusive to the british isles and there are some mutations on r1b the both the british isles and spain share. Oppenheimer shows the data for this. It would be interresting to asses anthropological appearance to r1b mutations.

Anyway back to the point, you claim the data is not new, INCORRECT, Brian Sykes uses his own Data never before published or used (he collects 10,000 dna samples from across the british isles) so you are wrong about your earlier statement.

Finally, most of the migration from iberia to spain oppenheimer claims happened in the paleolithic while sykes claims it happened mainly in the neolithic. Oh yes, i didnt realize that you were epf and i'm sorry if i was a little coarse earlier. --Globe01 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet account?

Is this user a sockpuppet for Epf? If so they may be up for a ban. This is very serious given that this user has made nasty personal attacks against me while possibly masquerading as a newbie user. As for the POV editing, this user has displayed a massive disregard for engaging in debate on talk pages, has made some absurd claims that are not supported by any reliable sources, has rarely verified any of their edits, this user constantly edits from a distorted POV, while claiming "neutrality", constantly claims to be supporting the academic consensus, whereas a simple search of academic literature clearly shows clearly that this user has at best a tenuous grasp of where the academic mainstream is. This user displays a right wing, racist, politically biased minority perspective regarding all issues concerning race and ethnicity. For example pushing the Multiregional hypothesis and claiming that most anthropologists support it, or claiming that most geneticists think there is a massive variation in human genetics. Indeed this user seems to think that the "best site on the Internet" is a neo-nazi site called "racialreality". Regarding Oppenheimer and Sykes, the data used by Sykes are new data. The data set used by Oppenheimer was an amalgamation of all sets from published papers, and so represented a very large body of data. But Oppenheimer analysed the data in a new way, breaking the haplogroups down into discrete haplotype clusters, and pinpointing paleolithic and neolithic founding events for all clusters. He shows convincingly that there have been no large scale founding events in the British Isles since the neolithic, with about a 3% intrusion in the Bronze age, about a 4% intrusion during the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion, about a 5% intrusion during the Viking settlement and about a 1-2% intrusion by the Normans. I suggest to anon/Epf that you read the books, it is absurd to claim that they are wrong when you have absolutely no idea what they say.Alun 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• LOL, haha, you fuckin loser Wobbs, yeah maybe I am Epf......NOT. Although he shares some views with me on race, hes some dumb Italian-British mut from Canada that actually annoys me. I have used other accounts on here, but with other anon. accounts, not as a registered user (which is allowed by Wikipedia since IP #'s change all the time). Hahaha, Wobbs, you are a fool, especially with how you place so much emphasis on those books recently released by Sykes, etc. which are a minority opinion in the world of population geneticists and other researchers. For your information, Racial Reality isn't a "neo-nazi" site you anarchist loser with no hope because your life is meaningless and you don't know ANYTHING on what you read about with these issues. RR is a neutral point of view that seeks to refute neo-nazi, white supremacists, multi-racial, race-denier, assimilationist, biased opinions that influence works including the authors of those books you mentioned. Stick to being a pathetic lab assistant and get a life you fuckin tool and stop vandalizing pages and makin edits to suit your twisted opinons you fool. Hahaha, wow, do u accuse 'sock pupety" of everyone who gets under you skin you douchebag ??? 69.157.107.88 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppenheimer supports much of what you claim

I would further point out that your claim to have read the books seems to me to be somewhat suspect, because if you had read Oppenheimer then you would realise that he actually agrees with a lot of your point of view. He says that there are clear genetic differences between the east of Great Britain and the west. He says that there seems to be a significant and ancient cultural, social and biological releationship between the peoples of the North Sea. He breaks down the R1b haplogroup into 16 discreet haplotype clusters that all have different founding events in the British Isles (soemthing you say should be done on the Spanish people talk page, but seem not to realise that that is exactly what Oppenheimer has done). He shows that these haplotype clusters form founding events at different times during the paleolithic/mesolithic. He states that we should not think of the paleolithic refugia as internally homogeneous genetically, and that there may have been "zones" within the refugia representing genetically different communities. He recognises mesolithic founding events for Scandinavia, Northern Germany, the Low Countries and South and Eastern Great Britain that are deriived from the Balkan and Ukranian refugia, these founding events may be what makes the people of North Sea coasts genetically and culturally similar. Indeed he clains that Celtic languages may have entered the west of the British Isles during the Neolithic from Iberia, but also that Germanic languages may have entered the east of the British Isles at about the same time. His most interesting point is that the eastern coast of Great Britain has had a long relationship with Norway and Denmark dating back to the neolithic, that they may have a shared language and culture for thousands of years. He also thinks that the Saxons were linguistically and genetically distinct fromt the Angles. That the Saxons were descended from the Belgae, and that in pre-Roman Britain there was a cross channel Belgae culture that was essentially Germanic, though different to the northern Scandinavian culture. He thinks that the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion was an "Anglian" invasion from Norway or Northern Denmark, that it represented nothing particularly new (because these cultures were quite similar and already had a long history of contact), but that this "invasion" had a limited genetic legacy in and of itself, but then the people being invaded were culturally already similar to the invaders. He claims that the Danish invasion was just a later and similar part of this continuing trend. He points out that the extent of the Danelaw mirrors the genetic and cultural differences we see already between the Angles on the one hand and the Saxons on the other. This is an excellent book, and he certainly has made me think about this subject. What he clearly shows is that the social, cultural, linguistic and genetic differences between eastern and western Great Britain are ancient (although this applies equally to east and west Scotland, he even implies that Pictish might have been Germanic), as are the continuing social, cultural, linguistic and genetic differences between nothern and southern English people. He afirms that England is the most heterogeneous part of the island of Great Britain, but this is obvious given the fact that England has a legacy derived from three different cultures and societies, Brythonic (Celtic), Saxon (Belgic) and Anglian (Scandinavian). You should read this book, I think you might find that it confirms rather than detracts from your point of view regarding the biological differences between the peoples of the British Isles. Of course it cannot claim that English people are different to Scottish or Welsh, because gene frequencies are distributed in clines rather than in discrete "populations", but it is true that certain Y chromosome types occur in eastern England, but not elsewhere in the British Isles, and that east Britain is different to west Britain. One thing it cannot confirm is the "Anglo-Saxon" genocide, but it doesn't need to, because it shows that the genetic differences between east and west are ancient and real. The other thing it can't confirm, and that you may not agree with, is that the "Anglo-Saxons" were an "ethnic group", he thinks that the Angles and Saxons were actually really quite different from each other and formed different ethnic groups that are still genetically, linguistically, culturally and socially detectable today. Alun 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, alun has cited the book well, infact i have already mentioned some of this info on this users talk page about the north european dna and ukranian refuge to england etc but he deleted, just check the edit history of the talk page. I think this info should definitely be included in the scottish and english people pages and perhaps even the cornish people pages as the cornish genetically differ from the average english quite a lot.

oh yes and i have heard news of a spanish geneticist releasing a book refuting some of oppenheimers claims that some of the r1b in ireland came from when cro magnon man was still travelling in northern europe from asia to southern europe as opposed to all r1b coming from the spanish/ french refuge. I dont know the source of this book though, perhaps this anon user could locate this book for us or cite it or cite any material that opposes the common veiws if he can find any info of this sought.--Globe01 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• i'm not going to respond to queries which don't understand the material they are referring to. Pffffffff, haha, your both stupid, but at least Globe doesn't take the time to write the stupid shit that Wobbs has, hahahahaha.