User talk:76.16.176.166

Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (76.16.176.166) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Fences and windows (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiregional origin of modern humans

I'm not going to get involved in the current editing dispute at Multiregional origin of modern humans (but I may soon). Please reconsider your method of editing in view of the following: An edit summary should discuss the edit (why change?), not the previous editor. When you are reverted with an edit summary including "Discuss on talk page before reverting", you should do exactly that. Ignoring that suggestion and putting your edits back simply invites your work to be reverted again. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay more attention to English usage and grammar in your edits, and don't revert grammatical corrections. Fences and windows (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create an account

Why not create an account, if you are going to be consistently editing these articles. In general, the opinions of anonymous editors are taken less seriously than registered users. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Some of your edits are quite disruptive and you made an effort to gain consensus with your edits. In addition you have been edit warring on these articles.

Wapondaponda (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted {3rr} - variably not true. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Price to buy deleted articles

What is the price to buy deleted articles. I remember writing something what was deleted and was time I really need it. Will be it not OK to negotiate to somebody to PAY for that service or just is not OK to receive gratification? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You posted that comment on the wrong page... You'll find some information at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? and Wikipedia:Userfication. In particular admins will "userfy" a deleted page:

If your article is deleted and you would like a copy of it to be restored to your userspace so that you may work on addressing the concerns about the page, you may contact one of the admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. (I could do this)

However this should not be done to simply then move the deleted article back to where it was. If you want it eventually restored (following a review) to the encyclopedia then you'll have to put in the hard work to address the concerns that lead to its initial deletion. Thanks/wangi (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of bold and italics

You seem to be overusing bold and italics in your editing. Bold shouldn't ever be used to emphasise points in the text, and italics should be used very sparingly. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#When not to use emphasis. In this edit,[1] I think you've used two commas ('') accidentally in place of quote marks ("). Quotes should be enclosed by quote marks rather than appearing in italics. Fences and windows (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

c

{{cite doi | [2] < ref name=""/ >

{cite journal | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | date = | year = | month = | day = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | series = | pages = | publisher = | location = | issn = | pmid = | pmc = | doi = | bibcode = | oclc = | id = | url = | language = | format = | accessdate = | laysummary = | laysource = | laydate = | quote = }

Truce

Can we call a truce please? Your edit here remarkably mirrors the templates I added to the multiregional hypothesis page - please don't make snide edits like this. We don't need such a combative approach to editing, I'm sure you can help Wikipedia if you rein in the temptation to edit according to your point of view. The various pages on human evolution are sorely in need of improvement, especially due to a lack of good sourcing. You don't like it, but a recent single origin of modern humans in Africa is the consensus among scientists: we need to reflect this. As most Wikipedia editors will believe in Out of Africa, editors aware of the contrary evidence are a bonus to the project, but only if you can edit within guidelines. The MRH page needs completely overhauling, and I'm very slowly working on going through the sources I found, including preparing citation templates for them. I admit that I had previously underestimated the scientific support for multiregional evolution, but Wolpoff's original theory is pretty discredited, and the debate has moved on more to what level of admixture has occurred, if any. We can work collaboratively towards improving the human evolution pages, but only if we calmly discuss the problems with the pages and how to address them, if we respect each other's points of view, and if we stick to using reliable sources. Fences&Windows 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, it's very nice. 76.16.176.166 (talk)

E1b1b edit

Hello, you recently reworded the E1b1b article in a way which I believe is an error. If you check the source you quote, I believe you'll see that it concerns E1b1b1a (E-M78) and not E1b1b (E-M35). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for reverting. The passage you changed was about E-M35, which Cruciani et al. think originated to the south of its subclade, E-M78. You should also look at their 2004 article which is more about E-M35. The passage you inserted is from their 2007 article about E-M78. If you look in the E-M78 section you'll see that the passage you quote is already mentioned, and more besides. I hope it makes sense, but if this does not explain everything let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop simply inserting this material back into the Multiregional origin of modern humans article. This is border-line vandalism now. At this point it isn't even about the content of your edits; they are simply unreadable to native speakers of English. Please revert your edits yourself as I may be merging into the three revert rule. Thanks.--Woland (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Multiregional origin of modern humans, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't do this again - I realise that you put a note in indicating that you had done this, but it's against our guidelines. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Multiregional origin of modern humans. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Several of us have asked you to please discuss your intended edits on the talk pages before you edit, because your English is poor to the point of being incoherent. Your attempt at simplification on Recent African origin of modern humans did not work. You need to try to communicate to the other editors on the talk pages of the pages you edit before you make changes if you don't want your edits reverted. You are causing many people a lot of time spent going over your edits which totally change the workup of the page, only in the end to simply revert your changes: we can't fix them because we can't understand what you are trying to say, much less agree to what you intend in your edits. Wikipedia doesn't work without good communication, and you may be restricted from editing if communication does not improve. Please consider my advice to you. Auntie E (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted good faith edit by 76.16.176.166

I reverted your good faith edit diff on the Mitochondrial Eve article. New half-baked sentences about limitations of mtDNA and multiregional evolution are valuable information, but should not be simply inserted randomly into the lead section without supporting changes in the main sections. Fred Hsu (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think when you understand the source 'half-backed sentence' become full-backed. This may be the answer to some above who too do not see sense in literature sentence. Sure i happen. I asked Stacky my friend about sense in deleted sentence. I think he didn't get it to, but who's cray who is Stacky .

First time I always assume good intention, let me ask you what is the other half of the half-backed sentence? Otherwise; what do you question as not true and not in cited source ? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.