User talk:Hunan201p

March 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vulva; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

DS alert

Hi Hunan, your recent reverting at Vulva and your posts on talk seemed a little aggressive. I'm leaving you a DS alert to remind you that the topic is under discretionary sanctions as a "gender-related dispute or controversy". I should add that I'm doing this as an editor, not as an admin, because I see that I commented on that talk page last year about the issue under discussion. Best wishes, SarahSV ^(talk) 19:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

WP:MEDRS and WP:OR

I have been reverting some of your latest removals of sourced content. You seem to have a massive misunderstanding about WP:MEDRS. It only applies to medical subjects. The origins of ethnic groups are not medical subjects and being blond is not a diagnosis. Also if a paper published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal is cited, it is, ipso facto, not original research. Please refrain from deleting sourced content based on spurious reasons. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, just to be clear, WP:MEDRS does apply to biomedical material regardless of what article it's in. Of course, a news report on a celebrity having cancer isn't and doesn't need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant. WP:Biomedical information advises editors on what falls under "biomedical information." WP:MEDRS aside, topics about genetics shouldn't be relying heavily on primary sources; this is per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So editors shouldn't be relying on single study material. And if reporting on a single study, it's best that this is only done if there is very little research on the topic and/or if the study is reported on in secondary and tertiary sources.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer, it's relieving to know that we've got such a vigilant group of overseers around here. Perhaps the WP:SCIRS page needs a iittle more visibility with regards to the human genetics section. I'd like it if there was a way to put banners on every ethnic/trait/medical related articles advising users about the WP:MEDRS note at WP:SCIRS. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:Biomedical information is quite specific about its scope, listing neatly the subjects intended. The only thing vaguely applicable in the case of blonde (where you claim MEDRS is applicable), is the bit about a ‘genetic study’. The sections deleted applied to prevalence of blond hair in Scandinavians, appearance of the gene for blond hair in mesolithic hunter-gatherers, which are, by no stretch of the imagination, is a medical subject and no genetic study is needed to determine whether or not someone is blond. No cure, ever, has been proposed to “blondism”, au contraire, much effort is spent on becoming blond.

The section in WP:SCHOLARSCHIP does not preclude use of primary sources, it does warn to take care not to interpret the results and attribute the claim. If it did, and that standard were applied rigorously, we would not have an article on Fast Radio Burst.

The subject is a grave one, though, and needs to be clear, since in the blond-article alone, nearly 10k was deleted, while applying the standard proposed here quite unevenly. If you disagree, I propose we bring this to WP:RS/N to get some extra opinions on the matter. Kleuske (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, going by your WP:Indentation, I can't tell if you were replying to me, Hunan201p, or to the both of us. But again, I just wanted it to be clear, including to anyone who saw the matter in the Blond edit history, that WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical material regardless of what article it's in. As for "WP:SCHOLARSCHIP does not preclude use of primary sources"? No, but it emphasizes the fact that academic articles (and academic material in general) should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. In general, as you know, Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources to primary sources, but this is especially the case for academic topics. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I understood the first time and I know we prefer secondary and tertiary sources, whenever possible. What I am disputing is that the appearance of a certain gene is Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, origins of ethnic groups and having blond hairs are biomedical matters, that is, they do not appear in the quite explicit listing of topics in the biomedical information article that defines the scope of MEDRS. I also dispute that appropriate usage of a primary source is a reason to delete parts of an article, claiming OR. It is not OR, though secondary sources are preferable. I am not sure how I should have indented here, but went by ‘if the shoe fits, buy shoelaces’. Kleuske (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It's in WP:SCIRS. There is often controversy surrounding things like phenotypes, which often relates to ethnonationalism or racism. The WP:MEDRS standard is enforced to prevent low quality references from being used to potentially present incorrect information about people or ancient events, as previously existed on the blond article (and definitely still exists there). Obviously any genetic study is biomedical in scope. What's your obsession with blond hair, Kleuske? - Hunan201p (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet?

If you are serious about this edit summary, you had better start a investigation and be informed otherwise. Also the WP:HOUND accusation and the term “abuser” can easily be construed as personal attacks. Just FYI, I have been patient, do not push it. Kleuske (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being LightFromABrightStar, just noted that you reverted something a known troll and sockmaster posted. You have obsessively reverted several of my edits across a wide variety of articles, often without explanation. That's the definition of hounding and if you keep it up, you are going to catch a bann.

Please be advised that I am not the least bit bothered by your attempts to threaten me and that you won't be getting me off this site no matter how hard you try (many others have tried very persistently with far greater concerns and failed). - Hunan201p (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genghis Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rashid al-Din (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genghis Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anonymous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

List-defined references

Interracial marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) uses a list-defined reference format. The article's history indicates you have recently been removing content and list-defined references. All references defined in the reference list must be invoked in the content. Unused references must be removed or commented out. Otherwise, it creates cite errors as seen here. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Some problems regarding Turkic people

Hello Hunan, I have seen that you are improving Turkic related topics, concerning genetics and origin. I want to say thank you for your good work. But there are still problems on Turkic peoples. To much attention is given to Roobbets fringe linguistic theory, which was ignored by other linguists and is purely hypothetical. Next, there is a hidden smell of East Asian supremacy in the article, likely from the socks of Derekhistorian and AsadalEditor. They seem to be hardline vandals with an agenda. We must keep Wikipedia free from their vandalism. You have already done good work. Keep watching. Best greetings.ChampaDroid (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the article on Timur

		The Epic Barnstar
		You have done a great research and found interesting information. You stated your argument in a comprehensible way and we appreciate your efforts! Looking for more updates from you.Visioncurve (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk) 07:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red hair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preservation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

If you continue to revert, I will be forced to report you for edit warring. Consider this your last warning. Qiushufang (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop restoring

Stop restoring the SPI. If you continue to do so, I will issue a partial block. [1] [2] [3] -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Biased POV by a dude with the last name "Damgaard"?

Article published: 09 May 2018; 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes. Authors: Peter de Barros Damgaard, Nina Marchi, Simon Rasmussen, Michaël Peyrot, Gabriel Renaud, Thorfinn Korneliussen, J. Víctor Moreno-Mayar, Mikkel Winther Pedersen, Amy Goldberg, Emma Usmanova, Nurbol Baimukhanov, Valeriy Loman, Lotte Hedeager, Anders Gorm Pedersen, Kasper Nielsen, Gennady Afanasiev, Kunbolot Akmatov, Almaz Aldashev, Ashyk Alpaslan, Gabit Baimbetov, Vladimir I. Bazaliiskii, Arman Beisenov, Bazartseren Boldbaatar, Bazartseren Boldgiv, Choduraa Dorzhu, Sturla Ellingvag, Diimaajav Erdenebaatar, Rana Dajani, Evgeniy Dmitriev, Valeriy Evdokimov, Karin M. Frei, Andrey Gromov, Alexander Goryachev, Hakon Hakonarson, Tatyana Hegay, Zaruhi Khachatryan, Ruslan Khaskhanov, Egor Kitov, Alina Kolbina, Tabaldiev Kubatbek, Alexey Kukushkin, Igor Kukushkin, Nina Lau, Ashot Margaryan, Inga Merkyte, Ilya V. Mertz, Viktor K. Mertz, Enkhbayar Mijiddorj, Vyacheslav Moiyesev, Gulmira Mukhtarova, Bekmukhanbet Nurmukhanbetov, Z. Orozbekova, Irina Panyushkina, Karol Pieta, Václav Smrčka, Irina Shevnina, Andrey Logvin, Karl-Göran Sjögren, Tereza Štolcová, Angela M. Taravella, Kadicha Tashbaeva, Alexander Tkachev, Turaly Tulegenov, Dmitriy Voyakin, Levon Yepiskoposyan, Sainbileg Undrakhbold, Victor Varfolomeev, Andrzej Weber, Melissa A. Wilson Sayres, Nikolay Kradin, Morten E. Allentoft, Ludovic Orlando, Rasmus Nielsen, Martin Sikora, Evelyne Heyer, Kristian Kristiansen & Eske Willerslev. Do not delete it. Nature (Magazine) is is a multidisciplinary scientific journal, a scientific magazine and reliable source. Peter de Barros Damgaardis not a dude but PhD who works in the Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: in the future, please pay more attention to what you read. The statements in the Wiki were POV, not Domgaard's paper (misrepresented by Krakkos's faulty interpretations). The paper is of course inadmissable in any genetics section on Wikipedia due to its primary research nature. - Hunan201p (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations on Qiushufang

Hi. Regarding Sockpuppet investigations on Qiushufang, can you identify who the creator of the Reddit thread was? The username is deleted. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC) @Gun Powder Ma:

@Gun Powder Ma: Yes, it was endofprivacy. See this link:

http://removeddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/

Please inform all admins about it. - Hunan201p (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ‎Hunan201p's neutral point of view.The discussion is about the topic Genghis Khan. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There is not a consensus

A consensus doesn't exist just because you say it does. The content is disputed, you are removing a critical mention from within the source that you yourself provided, and other editors have said that they aren't endorsing your particular understanding. You could just as easily be accused of vandalism as I. Establish consensus on the talk page FIRST.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@3family6: Sorry, I know you don't like it, but the admins have given me consensus for my edits at the physical appearance section at Genghis Khan. If you continue edit warring, especially in adding low-quality references to the article like a history.com trivia page, as well as denying the consensus I blatantly had at that article in April, I'll have no choice but to take this ANI. You have demonstrated a POV bias with your tendentious editing af Genghis Khan. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter has already said that this is not what they did. You are refusing to listen to anyone else. Also, you can't claim that I'm edit warring when you are also reverting contributions that I have made.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This was what Ymblanter said at Talk:Genghis Khan: "I do not think I supported anybody on this page. I just said that admins do not resolve content disputes. If this is not a content dispute but an editing behavioral dispute please go to WP:ANI and make the case there (but try not to use walls of text).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)" They thus are not endorsing either of us. And they certainly haven't declared that one version of the article the definitive one, and any additional content or analysis from reliable sources be removed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have listened to and engaged with you in a constructive way for days, 3family6. Whether Ymblanter thinks they supported me or not doesn't change the fact they gave me a strong form of consensus by restoring my material and keeping it locked for three days, declaring it a "pre-war" version, and later defended it against the ideas of Queenplz. Other editors also reverted to my material, and many admins reviewed it and changed nothing. That's a comprehensive, multiple-layer form of consensus. A History.com trivia page is not a reliable source. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That in no way justifies removing any and all changes and additions. I can understand reverting Queenplz. But now when I've tried to further develop the section and arbitrate the dispute, you've undone my work as well. Wikipedia articles aren't static. "A History.com trivia page is not a reliable source." Why not? I already said that I've opened up this question. "I have listened to and engaged with you in a constructive way for days, 3family6." You have on some things, but you've also been stubborn and intractable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable?

Link to this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop disruptively editing

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Genghis Khan, you may be blocked from editing. You continue to revert any additions or expansions I make if you simply don't like them. That's disruptive. I've repeatedly tried to find a compromise, I've re-read sources and fixed the wording of what I've done, but that doesn't satisfy you. You don't own that article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 are edit warring on the Genghis Khan page. You made more than five reverts in 24 hours. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop disruptive editing by removing sources that are reliable and content that goes with it. So far you have misrepresented sources as unreliable and the content that goes with it. Please discuss on the talk page first and gain consensus. This does not mean attacking others by saying their contributions are invalid. Also, consensus is not on your side in the current Fringe Noticeboard discussion Blond. Please do not edit against consensus. If these behaviors don't stop I will take this WP:ANI.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Laughable. I never removed any reliable sources and that noticeboard discussion was three cliquish and shady editors voting for eachother. Clear consensus for the Huangdi material already exists at Huangdi's article. Let me know when you file that ANI noticeboard complaint. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

See you at ANI. [4]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for disrupting editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hunan201p (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel this block violates Wikipedia's blocking policy, because I believe a more careful examination will show my edits were constructive. Ymblanter made this decision 3 hours after Steve Quinn posted his ANI complaint, which does not seem like a sufficent amount of time to review all the material in question here. Ymblanter also closed the discussion immediately afterward; which didn't allow any other admins to discuss my case. I strongly believe that if Ymblanter had taken more time to review the material, they would realize that my edits were constructive, not disruptive. To begin with, the reference at red hair, which is cited for the claim that a "phenotype study indicates Hmong have red hair", is falsified. It is not published by UCLA American Studies Center, as it is currently listed, but by Lulu.com, as can be seen on the "About this book" page in the reference link: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RmW4DwAAQBAJ&dq=Hmong+red+hair&source=gbs_navlinks_s This book is not written by experts, is not published by an academic source, is not a phenotypical study, and cites nothing of the sort. By removing this reference and the statement it was attached to, I improved the quality of the article. I had already exposed the falsification of this reference at talk:blond: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blond#Misrepresentation_of_references_by_Shinoshijak This is what I have been blocked for: removing a deliberately falsified reference. Second, I also feel that most will agree that a 1920s quote from the diaries of F.M. Savina, published by Society for the Promotion Christian Knowledge is not a reliable source for the claim that Hmong people have blue eyes and blond hair. This reference is not peer reviewed. By the way, this reference had originally been falsified as coming from "Harvard University Press", at the blond article, as seen in the above link. Third, Queenplz also removed a blue linked reference from the article, from Otto Maenchen-Helfen, and changed the statement about his beard to a "goatee", mimmicking the disruptive edits of a banned IP user at Liu Yuan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liu_Yuan_(Han_Zhao)&action=history In the edit which I have now been blocked for, I restored the bluelinked reference and the statement about Liu Yuan's beard (exact statement in the bluelinked reference). How am I the disruptive one here? I rest my case. I feel confident my edits were constructive, and if Steve Quinn disagrees, he didn't delve deep enough in to this material to see that it was falsified. It's just a shame to see that Queenplz has fooled people by falsifying a reference, something he should have been blocked for. Edit: On second thought, I would like add: although he is mistaken about the reliability of the content he restored, Steve Quinn has a point that I should have posted at the talk page after I made my edits. I was going to do this before I was banned, after catching a little rest, and didn't think such a short time would lapse before I was blocked. However I have discussed this content at the talk:blond page, extensively. I feel that a full 3 month block is excessive for my not posting at the red hair talk page soon enough, given my demonstrated propensity for discussing this material at talk:blond. Hunan201p (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You may feel the block violates something, but it does not. That there was no further discussion on ANI is irrelevant: an incident was reported, and an admin responded. This is not a community decision, there is no minimum discussion. I looked at the edit to see if you were correct in some obvious way and were being reverted unjustly, but that's not there at all. Whatever you said at some other talk page is irrelevant; discussion should have taken place on User:Red hair, or, and this is important, with reference to some discussion about the sources that you claim are "falsified" or whatever--a claim you made in a rather cavalier manner, and even if it had been true wouldn't have been a 3R exemption, for instance. So, if you want to try this again, please do so--but pick valid arguments, and keep it brief. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.