The ONLY last thing I wanted to add is to include history of nanyue into cantonese section. I really hope that whoever is removing this part would please stop. BECAUSE NANYUE....it's part of cantonese history, even the meaning of cantonese which means "Yue" was derived from Nanyue. That doesn't mean we are yue, we are of course more han chinese but we can't deny some of our yue bloodline. I know that many Cantonese have sensitive issues with being related with yue which also means viet. But the yue are not vietnamese... like many vietnamese claim. North vietnam ( oulou ) was conquered and incorporated in nanyue this is why I mentioned it on the history section on nanyue to stop the confusion. Some cantonese trying to claim 100% pure north han ancestry, it's absolutely impossible because according y-dna and mtdna genetic studies, it clearly shows many southern chinese are mixed to begin with. Cantonese Y-dna is Northern but mtdna is closer to southern, like many southern chinese.
Hey, I cited an very reliable source, it's from the record of grand historian.
-- WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 1:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
You have cited the primary source; it could be better if you also have secondary sources, e.g., books written in modern time. STSC (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Cantonese people, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. STSC (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't it constructive? I just wanted to make clear on the reason on how it led to the annexation and of other kingdoms, to make sense why nanyue later included north vietnam.Why is it in the other wiki page like the british people, dutch people ,spanish people ect are allowed to mention how some details of war and annexation of the territories, but you can't do this cantonese people. Since the history of Nanyue are also part of cantonese people's history.
-- WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I understand, but Zhao Tou and Nanyue it's part of cantonese history. It's in our name, in our blood and even in our modern territory today. The info I edited before contains only an very small percentage details of Zhao Tou and Nanyue, all I did was added an few more word and sentence, which I will stop after this. After this last edit, I will stop. I just wanted to make perfect sense into the edit by describing the reason it became the strongest baiyue state, and why north vietnam became annexed. It all started because he sacked the hunan capital city and repelled an invasion, this gave the reason to expand his territory and gained the allegiance of other neighboring kingdom. Everything I already mention is already on the Zhao and Nanyue wiki page. Zhao Tuo repelled an han invasion than incorporated north vietnam, not because it was already part nanyue.
-- WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please source your edits
WarriorsPride6565, I see that you are adding a good bit of material, which is good, but that you're not including references. Could you add citations and sources to the material you are adding? --Nuujinn (talk)11:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File: an powerful female pirate.jpg
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, they don't say who created that image or when, and I'm reasonably certain that it isn't an original creation by the person who created the website. Without knowing that, the image isn't usable on Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
October 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hong Kong, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. HkCaGu (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition to Austronesian peoples has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. and other articles.Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, can you please give me an example of which article specifically. Believe me, I'm not randomly removing words on purpose, some of the words I removed were just misleading to the readers. --WarriorsPride6565
Don't forget to sign your post with by typing four tildes, like: ~~~~. Anyway, [1][2][3] and several others. Here is one removing bits of comments of other users from a talkpage (!) which also happened more than once now: [4]. Frankly, I do not really understand the reason for this kind of edits. --Cold Season (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the hong kong edit was to make it clear to everyone that the vast majority of population in hong kong is cantonese. But instead it mentioned all the han chinese ethnic like it was similar in proportions, which is misleading in my opinion. The percentage of the Han ethnic group in hong kong should be mentioned accurately. " It is not surprising that Cantonese speakers accounted for the majority (79 percent) of the total population. Most of the Cantonese speakers were either born in Hong Kong or immigrated from the central or western part of Guangdong. " SOURCE: [1] --WarriorsPride6565 WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point, the reason I removed words like taishanese in hong kong wiki page was because taishanese are also cantonese people, hence the reason I wrote cantonese people make up the vast majority of hong kong. My recent changes were the "Hong Kong" and and "demographic of hong kong" The other link you showed me about hakka people was almost an month ago.--WarriorsPride6565
I will make it simple, since you still have no clue what I'm speaking of... Removal of the word "Hong Kong" here: [5]. But than on a larger scale with other edits. Cold Season (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the word "Hong Kong"? Sorry I'm confused , can you show me the paragraph or the words you mean? I did click your link, but it only showed me words that were bolded in red, those weren't words I removed, they were added by me. -- WarriorsPride6565 (talk), 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The first yellow-higlighted paragraph on the left (left side shows the old version before the edit), "Hong Kong" is marked red there which means it got removed. Don't randomly remove words like you did in a lot of edits. Cold Season (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I won't. By there is still something I don't understand, other words that are in the yellow-higlighted paragraph and are marked red like "an" or "percentage" are words that I added not removed, otherwise those will still be one the the H.K wiki page (on the demographic section)--WarriorsPride6565 WarriorsPride6565 (talk), 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I smell ignorance and full of misleading information. Who added that piece did such poor and horrible research. Who ever added piece CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND NOTHING ABOUT HAPLOGROUP GENETICS!!!! Just like you (Florian Blashke) obviously. It's stupid saying haplogroup D is found in china, is due to negrito. The chinese article says NOTHING about haplogroup D is due to negrito. The only negrito with D* are the Adamanese who are ISOLATED in adaman islands. FOR GOD SAKE.... DO SOME PROPER RESEARCH AND READ THIS """" REAL GENETIC EVIDENCE""""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andamanese_people " Andamanese (Onges and Jarawas) belong almost exclusively to the subtype designated Haplotype D, which is also common in Tibet and Japan, but rare on the Indian mainland.[13] However, this is a subclade of the D haplogroup which has not been seen outside of the Andamans, marking the insularity of these tribes." Haplogroup D2 is ainu, Haplogroup D1a and D3 is Tibetan and Tibeto-burmese, and paragroup D* is negrito, which is ISOLATED on the adaman island, and not found anywhere else. EXPLAIN THIS TO ME: How is it that D haplogroup belongs to negrito, when the only D* haplogroup dna is isolated in Adaman islands? and D haplogroup in china is related with tibetan D1 and tibeto burmese D3a. WarriorsPride6565 WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ ON ADAMANESE WIKI PAGE, AT LEAST READ ON THE HAPLOGROUP D WIKI PAGE which contained genetic evidence and approved reference, unlike that chinese article reference which says NOTHING about haplogroup D to beging with. Not only that, the chinese article mentions nothing about genetics, what's funny is that the whole point of this chinese article is more like an hypothesis. Was the person who added that chinese reference even an chinese person?
" Haplogroup D is also remarkable for its rather extreme geographic differentiation, with a distinct subset of Haplogroup D chromosomes being found exclusively in each of the populations that contains a large percentage of individuals whose Y-chromosomes belong to Haplogroup D: Haplogroup D1 among the Tibetans (as well as among the mainland East Asian populations that display very low frequencies of Haplogroup D Y-chromosomes), Haplogroup D2 among the various populations of the Japanese Archipelago, Haplogroup D3 among the inhabitants of Tibet, Tajikistan and other parts of mountainous southern Central Asia, and paragroup D* (probably another monophyletic branch of Haplogroup D) among the Andaman Islanders. Another type (or types) of paragroup D* is found at a very low frequency among the Turkic and Mongolic populations of Central Asia, amounting to no more than 1% in total. This apparently ancient diversification of Haplogroup D suggests that it may perhaps be better characterized as a "super-haplogroup" or "macro-haplogroup." In one study, the frequency of Haplogroup D* found among Thais was 10%."WarriorsPride6565 WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 1:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sources
Please reference material you wish to add with appropriate citations to source--if a book is a source, the author, title, and page number are a bare minimum. --Nuujinn (talk)21:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already got an source for the punti-hakka war. " More than 3000 Hakkas, who were defeated by the Punti in Gui county, joined the God-worship Society" [2] Book: Asian millenarianism: Author: Hong Beom Rhee, Page: 263
Randomly removing words and other matters
To refresh your memory, you said above that you'd stop removing random words and verified information. Afterward, you responded with a bunch of stuff about haplogroups, none of which was to the point of this edit. What you did here made even less sense--are you aware that you removed the word "fans" and created an ungrammatical sentence? and broke the wikilinks? Please let this be a warning: you were reported for vandalism, but I declined--but consider this a final warning. If you persist with such edits, you may find yourself blocked (depending on what edits they are, for instance), or you may find yourself called to WP:ANI, where someone might claim you don't have WP:COMPETENCE enough to edit Wikipedia. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT THE HELL..... I DID NOT REMOVED THAT WORD FAN. WHY WOULD I REMOVED THE WORD FAN FOR NO REASON???????
Sorry but I don't believe that, someone must have edited it that for me.I know for sure I added she was of Cantonese origin. SOURCE? HERE..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIfhxJzTOYs.
She clearly stated that she was of cantonese origin, it was removed.
Okay, I admit I HAVE ungrammatical sentence, please helped me correct. BUT AT LEAST.... I write the truth and wanted to correct this incorrect and misleading sentence such as this. This sentence " Haplogroup D (Y-DNA) are found frequently among some peoples living in the same area. In China, stone coffins were used by these peoples " IT is completely misleading and false, the only Haplogroup D, it misleading to everyone. The sources cited was 2 random chinese forum talking about ghosts and negrito.
And the edit contradicts this wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andamanese " Within this lineage, the Andamanese (Onges and Jarawas) belong almost exclusively to the subtype designated Haplotype D, which is also common in Tibet and Japan, but rare on the Indian mainland.[13] However, this is a subclade of the D haplogroup which has not been seen outside of the Andamans, marking the insularity of these tribes.[14]"
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Communication between editors is essential - any editor who won't communicate can expect to be blocked. Edit summaries are a vital and necessary part of this communication, and you need to start using them.Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
December 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hui People, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop removing words at random, as it causes people to have difficulty understanding the article(s) affected.Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller, valid point: this seems to be symptomatic of this editor's work. WarriorsPride, this is your final warning: your competence is in question. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They just disappear by themselves, I've asked people this problem before and they said I may have an bug in my browser. Those random words and phrases that keep getting removed are always highlighted in blue, I really don't know how it happened. Maybe I should change to an different account, I know how to change my Ip address as-well, maybe that would help HERE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS: http://i40.tinypic.com/2dlvfr.jpg
This is the reason why random words keep disapearing and I have too keep editing over and over again. (This is the zoomed version of wikipedia, that I copy and pasted. See the word "Flight" highligted and underlined in blue?) WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 4:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Change your browser, see if that helps. Make sure you've scanned your computer for malware. Somehow this needs to be fixed. Changing your IP address or account won't help. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lee Ya-Ching requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Drewerd (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that no one has welcomed you to Wikipedia, please allow me to remedy that! Unfortunately you have had a few missteps but that's ok! Please read through these links especially the Intuitive guide to Wikipedia. While you may feel a bit under attack remember, people would rather see you grow into an amazing editor than to give up on Wikipedia altogether. Something to keep in mind that Wikipedia works a bit differently than most other places, nothing ever truly gets deleted (except a few very rare special circumstances). On any article you can review the history and see every edit made ever, even the ones that are pure vandalism. If an article has been deleted you are free to remake it if you feel that you can make a good article. As with your article on Lee Ya-Ching I was actually a bit disappointed that I had to recommend it for deletion, the topic seems quite fascinating. However since it was a word for word copy and paste from the air and space article that would violate copyright laws, which could lead to Wikipedia getting sued. So go over a few guides and I hope to see you around. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. If you need any help send me a message by going to my talk page and adding a new section.
Hi. When you recently edited Jōmon period, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ainu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. When you recently edited Cantonese people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Your recent editing history at IQ and Global Inequality shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.
Pls stop your disruptive editing of the Human article. If you do not like the picture that has been chosen by consensus bring it up on the talk page. This far your racial and/or time frame objections seem to hold no weight. Perhaps you can elaborate on your objections to the image on the articles talk page as was done to originally change the image in the first place.Moxy (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were warned about edit warring, and decided to do so again, anyway. Furthermore, you are editing against a clear consensus, and throwing around accusations of racism at the same time. When your block expires, do not change the picture again unless there is a clear consensus change, or I will block you for much longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did I vandalized? NO. Did I insulted anyone? NO. Am I the only one who thinks the the picture should be removed? NO. This means I have just as much right to re-edit the pictures. You blocking me though someones request is an violation of wiki users rights. What's the point of going to the talk page if you can't resolve the problem in anything. You only solution is resorting in blocking, and the END RESULT is nothing has changed. I will still report this page to other wiki administrators. --WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 7:03, 11 march (UTC)
You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how this place works. Please read WP:Consensus and WP:Edit warring before your block expires, or yes, you will just find yourself blocked again. Not vandalizing, not insulting others, and having someone else agree with you absolutely does not mean that you can make any edit you want to. Consensus is quite clear, and until it changes, you are not to change the picture. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point of these re-editting, many do agree with removing the picture with the old one, you should think about how others feel about this too, not just me who thinks someone is being racist through biasness, or the user moxy who requested you to block me. You may have the right to block me for accusing people, but you have no right from blocking others who refuse this picture for their own reasons. I guarantee you I won't be the only one who is unhappy about these pics, especially Asian men who won't feel happy about this. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU CALL THAT ANATOMICAL FEATURES when you can't seen see the guys penis??? ( And yes, I know Asian men are know for having smaller ones but not that tiny, that guy has an malfunction syndrome penis). --WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 7:41, 12 march (UTC)
If only he was an shorty, how could call it shorty when you can't even see it? the picture was created by an wiki user, isn't it strange he chose an Asian guy with erection problem? WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 8:17, 12 march (UTC)
Last warning; if you imply this figure was created by a racist, or supported by racists, then I will prevent you from editing your talk page, and for a much longer time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the blocked editor, nor do I condone edit-warring. However, I recall a year or two ago when I happened to see that image and couldn't believe it was being allowed here. It may well have been innocently chosen, but that doesn't make it appropriate for wikipedia. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then comment at the appropriate talk page. I don't care what image is used; but edit warring and accusations of racism are not on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, is this your way of sorting out problems. To throw me threats and warning, so that you cant prevent me from making any reasonable discussion. Are you going to say I'm accusing you too? Also you mentioned that you don't care about what image is being used, than why did you personally re-editted the picture yourselve? CAN YOU REALLY SAY THERE IS NO RACISM IN WIKIPEDIA. Don't you know that there are people who can hide their racism intentionally?, as long as they prove the points they want everyone to see they don't need to tell you they are racist. These people uses something called " bias racism " to hide their racist intentions to prove their point on one hand, but on the other hand they back it with evidence to make it acceptable, to the point where you can't accuse them of being racist because they would use stuffs like genetics or human evolution to back up their claims as reasonable. Like for example an wiki user before in the Australian aborigine wiki page had this similar intention, this wiki user for some reason decided to use an Australian aborigine women with strange features, very ape looking ( 99% of Australian aborigines don't like that) but of all of picture she insists on using this australian aborigine women with ape looking traits. Some people call it racist, while others say it's not. While wiki user claimed she is not racist but the fact is that picture she used in a way depicted Australian aborigines as ape looking. WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 9:48, 12 march (UTC)
Ok, let's see, in order of your questions: Yes, I sometimes find that blocking disruptive editors who are refusing to listen to other people and who continue their disruption after being warned does a decent job of sorting out problems. I am not preventing you from "making any reasonable discussion", I am preventing you from continually accusing other people of being racists, with no proof. I don't care if you call me racist, because I know your opinion about this is not worth anything, but I won't let you keep calling others racists. I reverted you because the image you kept replacing was the consensus image, I could not care less which image develops consensus. I never said there is no racism on Wikipedia. But you have accused the people who support this image of being racist, and hiding their racism intentionally, without proof, multiple times, the latest just now after a final warning, so I have removed your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Indigenous peoples of the Americas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 know that you don't have consensus for this. Please stop adding it, get consensus on the talk page for your edits. And don't use 1922 sources for such claims. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller, you said I don't have a consensus for this but I haven't gotten your from reply since 9:36, 9 2012 April 2012. Neither from Dbrodbeck or Heiro either.
1)" Lahr, M. M. , Patterns of modern human diversification: Implications for Amerindian origins. American Journal of ::Physical Anthropology, " " Volume 38, Issue Supplement S2, pages 163–198, 1995
2)"BOOK American Indian life Elsie Worthington Clews Parsons - 1991 - 419 pages - PARAGRAPH " In race he was Mongoloid — not Chinese, Japanese, or Mongol proper, but proto-Mongoloid ; a straight-haired type, medium in ::complexion, jaw protrusion, nose-breadth, and inclining probably to round-headedness; an early type, in short..."
3) "Archaeology: The Widening Debate By Colin Renfrew " first colonized by proto- or pre-Mongoloid people, different from North Asian Mongoloids (Lahr 1997; Neves ct al.) Page 199"
4)" Genetic link between Asians and native Americans: evidence from HLA genes and haplotypes. Hum Immunol. 2001 Sep;6 "
5) " Method and Theory in American Archaeology" (Digitised online by Questia Media). Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips. University of Chicago. 1958. "
6)HERE ANOTHER ONE
"Howells, William W. (1997). Getting here: the story of human evolution. ISBN0-929590-16-3"
This is a recreation of the craniometric dendogram entitled "Cranial Cluster 28 Groups" in a book by anthropologist William White Howells, professor of anthropology at Harvard University who said "Indians" or "American populations" are closest in "studies of cranial distance" to "Europeans" as seen above and that among "Indians" or "American populations", only "Eskimos" are "strongly Mongoloid in form." WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 4:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Your additions to Shang archaeology and Shang Dynasty has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Cold Season (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what are you rambling about with you trying to "stop the afro-centrist spreading fake nonsense everywhere"? These articles is not an African topic, nor does it even mention anything remotely African.--Cold Season (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC) -[reply]
Afro-centrists are claiming everything Greeks, Romans, Shang. And the fact that this wikipedia didn't mentioned those important and hardcore facts is an HUGE blunder for Wikipedia and it's reader, it could have stopped Afro-Centrist creating all these nonsense lies and theories of their own in their self made-articles. Most people check Wikipedia, why didn't the wiki included data on racial anthropology? I have edited that excellent and hardcore information that the wiki page just didn't mention for some reason, which created even more confusion and nonsense for Afro-centrists and their debates not worth talking. Unless someone LIKE ME or someone else put some hardcore data they would continue to post their nonsense in some other place. How the heck do I even contact the copyright holder when most don't even response most of their time?.--- :WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Indigenous peoples of the Americas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
The subject your editing is one of expertise level and requires a broad understanding of the topic. This does not mean you should not or cant edit the pages - However when concerns have been raised by multiple editors one must step back and review what is being discussed. I am more then willing to provide some books on the topic so you can familiarize yourself with the overall subject.
Moxy (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ah Pak until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
