User talk:Roylee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note. This talk page has been restructured by Mark Dingemanse in the interest of making clear the continuing problems with Roylee's editing pattern. All questions and warnings that were simply blanked without any response by Roylee have been reinstated. This particular account has been abandoned since July 2005; after that, the user has been editing mostly anonymously but starting from August 2005, the account Roy Lee's Junior (talk • contribs) has come into use as well. See User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee for more information. 12:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Welcome and WP:NOR warning by Kosebamse 2 Welcome and WP:NOR warning by Andrewa 3 Second WP:NOR warning by Kosebamse 4 Ancient "Suez Canal" 5 Mende 6 Worries 7 Shipbuilding 8 Mende etc. 9 You are allowed to publish your web page URL on your user page. 10 Manual of Style 11 Recent Olmec edits 12 Afrocentric bias 12.1 Referencing and quoting an external link which you personally may be interested in: 13 No original research 14 Image source 15 Second warning 16 RfC

[edit] Welcome and WP:NOR warning by Kosebamse

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. While interesting, you recent article Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin looks rather like original research, and that is unfortunately one of the things that Wikipedia is not. If you want to write an article about such a topic, please make sure to cite sources and concentrate on reporting what is already widely known or accessible. Thank you. Kosebamse 11:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All sources are precisely cited and appear in blue. If you find any statement perplexing, please let me know, and I'd be more than happy to elucidate further. - Roylee  :)

Firstly, your sources are almost entirely Wikipedia articles. "Sources" of encyclopedic quality means essentially scientific publications published under appropriate review processes, at least as far as scientific topics are concerned, and as far as I can see, your article deals with a scientifc subject. Secondly, while I don't understand your article in detail, it's obvious that you are proposing a new hypothesis, and that falls quite clearly under what Wikipedia is not. Perhaps Wikibooks would be a more appropriate place for your work, but I am not sure about that, as I have not been active there and don't know their policies. Kosebamse 11:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Welcome and WP:NOR warning by Andrewa

G'day and Weclome!

Your articles and edits are fascinating, but you're riding roughshod over too many established conventions to list. Suggest a serious reading program! NPOV and what Wikipedia is not for a start. At the same time, we do encourage people to be bold.

Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin may not be salvageable, I don't know. Perhaps Wikinfo would be a better place for it.

When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp. We normally do this on discussion pages as a courtesy, but not in articles.

• Welcome is a good place to start.
• Wikipedia:How does one edit a page gives editing help.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting info.
• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
• Wikipedia:Help covers a broad range of useful topics.
• Wikipedia:Village pump is a place to ask questions.
• Wikipedia:Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

Please feel free to drop me a question on my talk page if there's anything you think I can help with. Andrewa 17:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Second WP:NOR warning by Kosebamse

Roylee, you may have noticed that I reverted your edits to Origins of chess. I think it is not a good idea to promote your article Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin by linking it elsewhere while it is on Votes for deletion (and it looks it will not have a chance of surviving in its current form). Please dicuss your ideas about chess on Talk:Origins of chess and feel free to reinstate your edits if there is consensus about their merits. Thank you. Kosebamse 09:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient "Suez Canal"

It's my understanding that the ancient "Suez Canal" connected the Nile with the Red Sea. In which case, I would think it facilitated Egyptian trade with East rather than West Africa? logologist 14:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't feel embarrassed by the following. (I am fortunate to having had contact with some very bright and exceedingly experienced historians in my lifetime who informed me of the following. Yes, you may declare the above, and it is a very common mistake.)

Ancient manuscripts refer to the "Mediterranean Sea" as the "Red Sea." Exactly why this is so is uncertain. For some reason or another, ancient references to both seas in many instances carried the same name. Even the Gulf of Suez is referred to as the "Red Sea" in some instances! However, I'm not an historian, and my memory fails at recollecting precise references for you. Sorry.

It was Necho II (610 - 595 BC) who dug the canal from the Nile to the Gulf of Suez.

The use of the term "Red Sea" in the article, Suez Canal, is only to appease those who want to claim this technicality in the ancient documents discovered (from the 13th century BC) of the canal's origin. They prefer to state that some other canal was constructed. However, try as energetically as we may, we always fail at locating any evidence of any other canal which these ancient documents must be referring to. Nevertheless, they prefer to argue that such evidence may show up some time in the future. So, we publicly leave the term as it is, yes probably in error, but maybe not actually so.

If you'd like a good map to reference, here is a really good one I have located on the internet, but it takes a few minutes to download. So be patient! [1]

The Egyptians wouldn't have needed to dig a canal to get to the Mediterranean Sea. All they needed to do was sail downstream. logologist 21:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Egyptians to Mediterranean Sea? Yes. West African Saharans to eastern "states?" No.

The West African Saharans were the major shipbuilders of the era, not the ancient Egyptians. But, both populations were African. Perhaps the initial motivation to dig a Suez canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf of Suez was of West African origin??? Perhaps the actual dig was a joint effort???

Perhaps the Phoenicians were West Saharan Africans??? According to Phoenicia: Phoenician Merchantry, Egyptian pharoah Necho II sent a Phoenician expedition out to circumnavigate Africa. Why would the Phoenicians oblige to an Egyptian pharoah? Maybe because Egypt dug the canal for them? Seems reasonable, but we'll never know.

[edit] Mende

Would you care to elaborate on you recent additions to Mende language? I'm not sure what you were trying to say there. I've pulled them out pending citation, if you don't mind — let's talk about it first on Talk:Mende language. Regards, — mark ✎ 14:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same holds for your additions to Mende tribe, which were full of so-called weasel words. Please remember that Wikipedia's job is only to report facts, not to 'reshape the views of scholars', to borrow a part of your text at Mende tribe. Also, you really might want to check your sources. Not every website can be treated as a reputable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Kind regards, — mark ✎ 14:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note that you were using a misleading edit summary at Mende language. You described your recent edit as 'adding external academic references' whereas in fact you reverted to your own version of the article, furthermore adding a misinformed statement about English and Mende. Why not discuss this on Talk:Mende language first, like I asked you? I believe I clearly explained my position and my actions. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 15:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worries

Hi, Roylee. After reviewing some of your contributions more closely I'm starting to feel worried. It appears that you have been trying to lend your arguments credibility by citing phrases of articles that you have added yourself before. Two examples:

• You edited the history section of West Africa to include a statement about shipbuilding, referring to the article shipbuilding. Turning to that article, we find that you yourself added a tidbit about seafaring Saharans, perhaps not surprisingly referring to West Africa. This is an obvious (and profoundly worrying) circularity.
• You have posted a lengthy essay at Talk:Timeline of motor and engine technology. In it, you refer to the articles Shipbuilding (yet again) and West Africa (...). You also cite Maritime archeology, which, not surprisingly, also refers to the statements you yourself added to the history section of West Africa.

Please review the No original research, Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Check your facts policies and refrain from doing this in the future.

I note furthermore that several other editors have tried to make this clear to you. What are your own thoughts about this policies and about the above examples of your editing pattern? — mark ✎ 17:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shipbuilding

I have reverted, for the second time, your edits to this article. Your use of false edit summaries, such as stating that you're splitting a paragraph while re-inserting previously reverted content, might be construed as being consciously misleading. Please refrain from inserting contentious and unreferenced content into articles, especially under unhelpful edit summaries. Such content will normally be promptly reverted. Thanks, BanyanTree 00:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mende etc.

Hi, Roylee. I will not push it and revert your deletion of my (and other's) comments again. I just want to say that deleting comments you disagree with is frowned upon by many people here, because it makes it difficult to talk in honesty and clarity. Please keep in mind that it might even make it look like you're trying to hide something. If you don't want to talk, then don't; but please refrain from reverting changes of other editors who take the time to explain what they did and why. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 15:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are a con artist mixing disguise, deception and truth. All my personal and prior experiences guide me away from attempting to engage in any intelligent discussion. Apparently you have problems with memory, because as I said before, I don't want your words here. How many times must I say this? Begone. --Roy Lee

Roylee, I have inspected the history of your talk page, and can only agree with Mark. I have therefore self-referentially undeleted your deletions. Wizzy…☎ 05:51, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You are allowed to publish your web page URL on your user page.

I know of several Users who have their personal URL's on their user page. (What you are not allowed to do is state the POV of that URL, -- that would be an advertisement, but you are allowed to state that you have a web page, etc.) The reason is, that if someone likes what you have written on Wikipedia, they can follow the link and get more information (about you as a person, which they presumably are interested in knowing, if you have published the link, and they are interested in knowing more about you). If you have written other things elsewhere, that is exactly analogous to the external links on the article space pages.

But I can see how you might get into trouble if you wrote a sentence like For a free ironing board, klick here -- that would be an ad. Ancheta Wis 01:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manual of Style

Hi, Roylee. You might want to check out the Manual of Style. One of the things you often seem to do is placing a reference in the form of an external link right after your addition, like this [2]. However, the Manual of Style discourages this practice, and instead recommends using footnotes or placing references in a separate 'References' section. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Position in article. Trying to abide by this makes our articles more consistent and thus more readable. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 01:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Keep your eyes on Olmec. I found an exhaustive genetic analysis ... contradicting both of us. Reference will be moved to the bottom of the page. -- Roylee

Roy, you might want to try Wikipedia:Footnote3 to ease the reading experience and at the same time keep all references at the bottom. See for example how I used them at Gbe languages. — mark ✎ 12:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Olmec edits

Hi, I came across your recent edits to Olmec, and I'm somewhat puzzled by your recent addition of the section titled 'Conclusions from modern genetic analysis'. Reading that section, it appears to be a snippet taken out of context, and the section could benefit from some elaboration. Specifically:

1. Bullet point #2 states "Language studies (linguistics) and genetics do not accurately correlate in 'microenvironmental' scenarios."... what does that mean? My perception: Kind of like "microeconomics" versus "macroeconomics." Micro looks at say a city, while Macro looks at an entire nation.
2. Bullet point #3 states "How people arrived in the Americas seems to be more complex than previously speculated,"; nowhere in the article does it explain what was previously speculated. Okay, i.e., across the Bering Strait. But this across-the-Bering Strait Theory fails at explaining the isolationistic genetic lineage indicated by these recent genetic analyses. In other words, we need either (1) an "Atlantic/Antarctic" land bridge to link South America to Eurasia/Africa or (2) an allowance for prehistoric maritime travel if we are to explain, in Evolutionary terms, why Eurasians/Africans are still anatomically identical (on the inside) to Meso- and South Americans. This wouldn't be the case (probabilistically speaking) if we didn't have a common ancestor.
3. The conclusion is written in the first person (e.g. why are we still so similar)... who is 'we'? The section is almost argumentative in a way. No argument was intended. The intention was rather to explain, in Evolutionary terms, why Eurasians/Africans are still anatomically identical (on the inside) to Meso- and South Americans. This wouldn't be the case (probabilistically speaking) if we didn't have a common ancestor.
4. The section is currently a subsection of "Olmec Art", which was probably not your intention. A fix is on the way.

I would have gone and edited this myself, but I think you probably know more than I do on this subject. --Bletch 03:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I came here with more or less the same query. These passages bemused me. I've already changed 'we' to 'they':

The questions facing researchers now are: If Meso- and South American Amerindians evolved in isolation from the remainder of the world, why are we still so similar ... genotypically and phenotypically? Obviously our similiarities stem from a common ancestor. But then how could the Olmec have reached Central and South America? Okay, these lines have been deleted.

No-one, presumably, is suggesting that meso and south Americans evolved separately from other members of homo sapiens, in the sense that they independently became "human" from a pre-human ancestor. I guess the claim is that meso and south Americans are not immediately related to more northern Amerindians, perhaps surviving from an earlier wave of migration. I don't understand the question 'why are they so similar'. Do you mean why are they so similar to other human beings, or to one another? Paul B 11:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to edit as you see fit. I'm equally as ignorant and may have misinterpreted the original article. But, the researchers have offered their e-mail address for your questions: aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es. Give 'em a shout. -- Roylee

Can you at least try to describe what you interpreted the article as saying? The problem with the section as it stands is that it is unclear what it is trying to state at all. --Bletch 12:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Roylee, did you actually read this "original article" - the whole article? Nope. I assume you are referring to the first external link you added at the bottom of the page. This gives access to a rather gnomic synopsis, but in order to get the full article you have to subscribe to the journal, which I have no intention of doing! So if you have read the whole article you are better placed to clarify it than we are. No, I just had thought that I had sufficiently understood the Abstract which you yourselves are reading (and I still believe I did, as the conclusions are similar to another reference posted). But, I'm only human. There may be some errors there. Feel free to edit. And the fact remains that you wrote this bit, so you must have some idea what you meant when you wrote it. --Paul B 12:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afrocentric bias

I notice that you systematically promote typically Afrocentric views about ancient Egypt and other civilizations that are believed to have been "Africoid" in Afrocentric circles (Olmec, Sumer, Indus Valley, and even Greece). Your citing of a widely discredited study by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena that claims Greeks are genetically related to Ethiopians is a particularly egregious example of your bias, as the study contradicts all other genetic research on Greeks and has been heavily criticized by other population geneticists (see [3]). Yet you dishonestly cited the article as if it were the only and last word. This is not an isolated occurence; to prop up your self-serving opinions you scour the entire corpus of literature to find a single source that might support your point, and proceed to cite it without mentioning that the views presented therein are not in the mainstream. You really should consider limiting your Afrocentric propaganda to your own websites rather than trying to sneak them into Wikipedia. You should also be more honest about your background (please don't say you are "French" to make yourself appear more objective). - Dave Lowen

[edit] Referencing and quoting an external link which you personally may be interested in:

I'm not attempting to be rude here: First, I just wish you had a scientific background, because your information is badly tainted. Please read below. Second, PubMed (see Conclusions from modern genetic analysis) would likely enjoy entertaining your criticisms. If upon reading all the below you still disagree, perhaps you should drop 'em a line. Third, I'm not dishonest. You are merely ignorant, and hopefully the following may educate you a bit:

Regarding comments on the study by Spanish geneticist Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, which showed that a large number of Greek HLA alleles -- those genes which are known to determine resistance to disease -- cluster with Ethiopians and sub-Saharan Africans, it is important to note that the Arnaiz paper which deals with Macedonia and Greece is called "HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks" and published in the magazine Tissue Antigens February 2001, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 118-127, while the article from which Pontikos has extracted his quote refers to a completely separate article which appeared in Nature magazine, dealing with a debate about how Jews and Palestinians are closely related. The quote Pontikos is using does not even refer to the Greek-Macedonian study, but instead another one dealing with genetic differences between Palestinians and Jews. It is therefore nothing less than a deliberate misrepresentation to project personal criticism of a report comparing Jews and Palestinians onto a separate report comparing Greeks and Macedonians, even if some of the data is cross-referenced. As a matter of fact:

• The highly polymorphic HLA system has been validated as useful for distinguishing and/or relating populations (and individuals) in many papers and in all the subsequent international workshops since the First International HLA Anthropology Workshop (Evian, 1970).

• HLA gene frequencies correlates with geographically related populations; the existence or absence of gene flow among neighbours may be assessed with the study of HLA frequencies and the corresponding genetic distances. (sources: Genetic relationships among various human populations indicated by MHC polymorphisms. In: Tsuji K, Aizawa M, Sasazuki T, eds. HLA 1991. Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 627-32; and Clayton J, Lonjou C. Allele and Haplotype frequencies for HLA led in various ethnic groups In: Charron D, ed. Genetic diversily of HLA, functional and medical implications. Vol 1. Paris: EDK, 1997: 665-820).

• The HLA system has been shown to be very polymorphic, able to be compared among ethnic groups and useful to distinguish populations (HLA allele and haplotype frequencies in Algerians. Relatedness to Spaniards and Basques. Hum Immunol 1995: 43: 259-68).

• Scientific articles citing HLA genes as useful forensic to track populations:

Imanishi T, Wakisaka A, Gojobori T. Genetic relationships among various human populations indicated by MHC polymorphisms, in Tsuji K, Aizawa M, Sasazuki T, eds. HLA 1991. Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 627-32.

Clayton J, Lonjou C. Allele and Haplotype frequencies for HLA led in various ethnic groups, in Charron D, ed. Genetic diversily of HLA, functional and medical implications. Vol 1. Paris: EDK, 1997: 665-820.

Izaabel H, Garchon HJ, Caillat-Zucman S et al. HLA class II DNA polyhiorphism in a Moroccan population from the Souss, Agadir area, Tissue Antigens 1998:51: 106-10.

Arguello R, Avakian H, Goldman JM, Madrigaij A. A novel method for simultaneous high resolution identification of HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-Cw alleles, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996:93:10961-5.

Kimura A, Sasazuki T. Eleventh International Histocompatibility Workshop reference protocol for the HLA-DNA typing technique, in Tauji K, Aizawa M Sasazuki T, eds. HLA 1991. Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 397-419.

Bignon JD, Fernandez-Vif MA. Protocols of the 12th International Histocompatibiity Workshop for typing of HLA class II alleles by DNA amplification by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and hybridization with sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes (SSOP), in Charron D, ed. Genetic diversity of HLA, functional and medical implications. Vol I. Paris: EDK, 1997: 584-95.

Imanishi T, Akaza T, Kimura A, Tokunaga K, Gojobori T. Estimation of allele and ha frequencies for HLA and complement loci, in Tsuji K Aizawa M Sasazuki T, eds. HLA 1991. Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 76-9.

Imanishi T, Akaza T, Kimura A, Tokunaga K, Gojobori T. Allele and haplotype frequencies for HLA and complement loci in various ethnic groups, in Tsuji K, Aizawa M, Sasazuki T, eds. HLA 1991. Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992:1065-220.

Mehra MC, Rajalingam R, Kanga U et al. Genetic diversity of HLA in the populations of India, Sri Lanka and Iran, in Charron D, ed. Genetic diversity of HLA, functional and medical implications. Vol 1. Paris: EDK, 1997: 314-20.

Roitberg-Tambur A, Witt CS, Friedmann A et al. Comparative analysis of HLA polymorphism at the serologic and molecular level in Moroccan and Ashkenazi Jews, Tissue Antigens 1995: 46: 104-10.

Martinez-Laso J, Gazit E, Gómez-Casado E et al. HLA DR and DQ polymorphism in Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews: comparison with other Mediterraneans, Tissue Antigens 1996: 47:63-71.

Degas L Dausset J. Human migrations and linkage disequilibrium of HLA system, Immunogenetics 1974: 1: 195—210.

• Arnaiz-Villena has published a huge number of scientific articles, all dealing with HLA genes and their ability to track population. Only one of the several hundred papers published bearing his name has been "retracted" by the scienitific community (as you may find noted at the bottom of the web page linked here). HLA alleles are race specific. Central to Pontikos' criticism of Arnaiz is the assertion that HLA Alleles are not race specific. Unfortunately for Pontikos, they are, and the scientific evidence for this is overwhelming. See bottom of web page: [4].

In summary: Pontikos' argument is intellectually twisted, leading many readers such as yourself to wrong conclusions. PubMed already knows about his criticisms, and they already recognize the deception. Unfortunately, many are still falling victim to the distortion. Sincerely, Roylee

---

Response to above:

• Your copying and pasting from a white supremacist website [5] does not overturn the Stanford geneticists' criticism of Arnaiz-Villena's methods:Yep. You said it. But, no, they are not white "supremacists." Otherwise, their web site would have been shut down long ago by the authorities. I certainly don't agree with much of what they say, but your analytical style again is off mark. And the Stanford criticisms were directed toward something else unrelated. Indeed, criminal forensics would be very different otherwise.

Have you not read a single thing I wrote? The Stanford geneticists directed their criticisms toward Arnaiz-Villena's METHODOLOGY, particularly, his singular reliance on the HLA DRB1 marker to determine population relationships. The Greek and Ethiopian data is the SAME in both the Palestine-Jewish and the Greek-Macedonian-Ethiopian studies, so the criticism of that data in one study also applies to the other. The two studies were done by the same researcher (Arnaiz-Villena) using the same marker and the same methods, and of course got the same anomalous and highly criticized conclusion that Greeks are related to Ethiopians. The two studies are in no way "unrelated" as you so incompetently claim. -DaveLowen

"But, no, they are not white "supremacists." Otherwise, their web site would have been shut down long ago by the authorities." Roylee, are you serious? "The authorities" (whoever they may be) do not have the right to close down white supremacist websites. In any case, being a white supremacist is not illegal in any country I'm aware of. You are talking about March of the Titans here!!!! It is the principle white supremacist website -Paul B 21:58, 20 May, 2005 (UTC)

"Using results from the analysis of a single marker [HLA DRB1], particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. Hundreds of scientific studies contradict this statement. The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians (again, your reading comprehension is low, because that's never what he said. Go ahead and try to find a quote to prove me wrong) and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans (wow, where do you imagine this stuff?); and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans (outer space, maybe?). It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results (I suggest you consult a professional), which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups (it would if that's what the study originally said, but again your reading comprehension is low. It never said that.)"

PLEASE READ MORE CAREFULLY. The text I wrote above is a verbatim quote by Risch, Piazza and Cavalli-Sforza in their 2002 Nature letter that ridicules Arnaiz-Villena's methods. The statements therein have nothing to do with my "imagination" or "reading comprehension," because they are direct quotes from the Stanford geneticists. Capisce? -DaveLowen

• I find it very interesting that you did copy your above "argument" from a white supremacist website (perhaps you should tell the FBI that. I certainly don't agree with much of what they say, but I certainly don't accuse them of being white supremacists). You and they both want (not true. I'm just reporting facts which apparently bother you a great deal) to prove Greeks are related to Ethiopians (if you could read better, you'd see this is not true), but for different reasons: the white nationalists want to prove that an influx of Africans into Greece destroyed Greek civilization (okay, if you say so. I know nothing about them. Are you a white nationalist? How else would you know this???); you (an Afrocentrist) (no, not true. I was trained to be an impartial scientist, and that's what I am) want to prove that the Africans created Greek civilization (how does a common resistance to disease implicate that ancient Greeks were related to Ethiopians? Your mental logic is off key). Strange bedfellows! (Not me. You're the one making the white supremacist statements here.)

Oh, come on! In a previous revision of the Ancient Greece article, under the Origins heading, you yourself wrote the following:

"Greeks do not fit in the above ((Mediterranean)) lineage. They are entirely different. Greeks have been found to share a genetic lineage mostly resembling that of Sub-Saharan Ethiopians, with almost a dozen identical 'quasi-specific' alleles. Genetically, Greeks resemble Ethiopian/Sub-Saharan groups more so than to any other Old Mediterranean group,..."

By posting that nonsense in the Ancient Greece article under the Origins heading, what exactly were you trying to suggest, if you don't really believe Greeks came from Ethiopians?! -DaveLowen

• Stop telling me to contact PubMed (apparently you fear truth ... and authority). To criticize the study, one would contact either the author or the Journal that published it, not the Internet search service (the National Library of Medicine is NOT an Internet search service. If your doctor knew that you just said that, how would he react to you? Your ignorance is really showing now) that provides access to its citation. And since three top geneticists have already openly delivered a scathing criticism of Arnaiz-Villena's methodology (obviously, you don't know what in the world you are saying) in the journal Nature, there is no reason to do it again (if you say so, but hundreds of scientific articles annihilate your meager arguments ... anyday).

PubMed is a search service provided by the National Library of Medicine. If you can't understand that (and your above rant makes it obvious that you can't), then there's no hope. I mean, come on; I point out that PubMed is an Internet search service, and then you respond by saying "The National Library of Medicine is NOT an Internet search service!" This is a waste of time. -DaveLowen

• You have no answer as to why prior and subsequent genetic studies on Greeks have directly contradicted Arnaiz-Villena's conclusions (Again, see the web page [6] for examples (the extent of your opinionated statements apparently venture no farther than such paltry "blog" information. Try reading an encyclopedia sometime). His conclusions (what conclusions? That the Greeks were resistant to the very same diseases which the Ethiopians were? So what? Why are you so bothered by this???) are also contradicted by history, geography, and anthropology (Nope. Your arguments are beyond help now). Why would you think that your Arnaiz-Villena study is correct and all the others are wrong? (what all others? Hundreds of scientific articles prove YOU wrong. Good Bye, Wish you well, Roylee)

"What others"? Are you serious? I already pointed you, via a link, to studies by Ivanova et al. 2002, Petlichkovski et al. 2004, and Ayub et al. 2003. All of which contradict Arnaiz-Villena's highly anomalous result. Ayub et al., who used 182 loci (as opposed to Arnaiz-Villena's one) revealed Greeks' distance from Africans, and closeness to Basques and other Europeans. -DaveLowen

[edit] No original research

Hi, Roy. As User:Kosebamse pointed out when you arrived here in December 2004 (I note that you blanked his welcome), many of your edits seem to constitute original research. Additionally, you are often inserting non-mainstream theories into articles, pretending that they are uncontroversial and based on 'modern research' and 'recent studies'. Some of your edits are uncontroversial and do help improve Wikipedia and I want to acknowledge that. However, the many edits that do not comply with such policies and guidelines as No Original Research and Verifiability in fact place a burden on other editors to check your facts.

I want to point you once again at the No original research policy. The new section you recently added to Olmec is a good example of original research. It is obvious that you want to imply something by adding phrases like "How people arrived in the Americas seems to be more complex than previously speculated" and "descendants of the first humans to enter the New World ... have no obvious ties to any Asian groups" under a heading like "Conclusions from modern researchers". The problem is that Wikipedia articles should not imply any such thing. Wikipedia's job is only report facts. What you seem to do is pulling all sorts of recent studies out of context and cleverly combining them to make articles say things that are in effect fringe theories. It's clever, but you should keep it at your own websites or add it to Wikinfo — Wikipedia is simply not the place for it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I want to let you know that some editors have started monitoring some of the articles you edited in order to verify them and to pull out any unsubstantiated information. — mark ✎ 09:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to add: here. — mark ✎ 07:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:The-Tetrarchs.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you.

[edit] Second warning

Hi, Roylee. You seem to have abandoned this account, but have continued your editing pattern from a range of 4.241.x.x IP's. This warning is directed to the editor associated with this particular account and with those IP's.

I want to make sure that you understand what you are doing. As long as you continue your questionable editing pattern, this can be construed as knowingly neglecting and violating the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that have been brought under your attention, such as No original research, Cite sources, Verifiability and Reliable sources. I trust you are aware that a lot of your additions (namely, those consisting of unreferenced statements, self-referential fringe theories, and original research) have been removed from several articles you edited. This is a direct result of the fact that those additions violate the above policies.

As stated multiple times before, Wikipedia is not the place to build a web of self-referential fringe theories. If you want to continue this, I must ask you to reconsider if Wikipedia is the place for you to be. There are numerous other wikis where you can freely develop your own theories. Once again, and probably needless to say: any helpful, legitimate, verified, fact-checked contributions by you are warmly welcomed.

Regards, — mark ✎ 29 June 2005 16:48 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

A Request for Comment has been opened against you at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Roylee. Please acknowledge on that page. Wizzy…☎ 11:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)