User talk:Liseranius

Liseranius,

I just noticed you updated the haplogroup T map, I appreciate your work but I did find an error you made. You incorporated the work of Immel et al (2009)[1] on Somalis of Arab descent as Northeastern Somalis on that map. This is incorrect, the Benadiri people of Somalia live around the Southern coast of the country, starting somewhere in Mogadishu all the way to the city of Kismaayo (map as reference [2]). The Northeastern part of the country is largely E1b1b and native. I wish you could update the map, because as it currently stands it is slightly inaccurate. Cheers.

Wadaad (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wadaad,

Where you found that Somalis in Immel et al. (2009) are "Benadiri"? I appreciate if you give me link/s to annotations from the authors of the study or some prove about it. How do you know that the Northeastern part of Somalia is largely E1b1b? Is there any study? Regards.

According to wikipedia, the Benadiri are "mainly descended from Yemeni merchants who intermarried with the local Somalis." Haplogroup T isn't found in any Yemeni man of all samples from Yemen. So, isn't likely that these Somali Arabs are descendants from Yemeni people for the moment. If these Somali Arabs are Benadiri, so partly Yemeni, will be very likely that these T are mostly ethnic Somalis and if Benadiri are 21% T with mixed ancestry, I would expect a very high percentage of haplogroup T on the ethnic Somalis from these Somali regions. All haplogroup T Somalis minus 1 (¿Sicilian origin?) of the three samples of Somalis are haplotypes very closed between them. As you well know, there are more Arab communities in Somalia like Omani Arab, Juba Somali Arab or Yemeni Arab.

--Liseranius (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The results of Immel et al. (2009) are not in concordance with data previously collected on Somali y-DNA (Cruciani et al. (2004), Sanchez et al. (2005), and Tillmar et al. (2009). All those studies (latter two having over 100 samples) showed that the overwhelming majority belong to E1b1b, while in Immel's study it has a much lower frequency. Frequency of J is also much higher in Immel's study. This together with the fact that the author described them as 'an Arab population', which ethnic Somalis never describe themselves as, makes it implausible the samples were ethnic Somalis.

Arabs in Somalia are mainly the Benadiri people, they actually have multiple origins[1], including places like Oman and Persia where T is also commonly found. The location of Arab Somalis is solely in the Southern Coast of the country where traders settled, not in the Northeast part which has no Arabs but is formed of Somali tribes. The etymology of the Benadiri even stems from the Persian word for port. It looks like their wiki page needs more info.

Here's another source[2] confirming the multiple origins of the Benadiris (page 11 of the report). It also confirms their Southern coastal location.

I hope you could alter your map, 10% for the Northeast and the 21% Immel found for the Southern Coast.

Wadaad (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Arab population is from Somalia, even if they are Benadiri Arabs you know that Benadiri are a mixture of old ethnic Somalis and Arabs. So, Benadiris ever have haplogroups of ethnic Somalis and Arabs. The T haplotypes of this Arab population from Somalia are closer to the haplotypes of the ethnic Somalis from Sanchez et al. and Tillmar et al. but very distant from all haplotypes from Omani T haplogroup members. If haplogroup T in this Arab population has come from old ethnic Somalis, then we are talking about native Somalian haplotypes. If we have 21% of natve T haplotypes in a mixed population, then we can expect a higher frequency in ethnic Somalis from the same region of this Arab population.

I read that there are Arab communities in North Somalia. However, I will read your links and I will try to find more info about this issue but if I can't be sure of the location of this Arab population I will can't change the map.

[1]

--Liseranius (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a language map not an ethnic one. Arabic is used as a second language by many Somalis but it does not mean they are ethnically Arabs. That map is also user-generated, I spotted an error as it indicates that 'Nubi Arabic' is spoken in Southern Somalia, while this is false. Also, the cut-off points in Northern Somalia seem completely random. The light pink areas for the Benadiri however are correct. [1]

I myself am a Somali and have never heard of Arabs in Northern Somalia, other than a couple of scattered recent immigrants. Virtually all Arab descendants are in the coastal South. You can read this report about non-Somali minorities in Somalia [2].

Even if those T haplotypes are closer to Somalis than to Omanis it still doesnt change the fact they aren't from the Northeast as your map indicates. The Benadaris (the only significant Arab population of Somalia) were an isolated community for a long time and genetic drift/founder effect could have increased their T frequency and thus not representative of the Somali community at large. I am afraid their current map location is incorrect. Changing their location to the coastal south is a better indication of where the samples originate.

Wadaad (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sended a e-mail to Immel and I'm waiting for a answer but I will change that in the next time if there aren't any news. For know really the T frequency of all Somali regions we need a detailed study of somali tribes.

Do you know if Faafaxdhuun or Faan Weyn have any Arab Somali population?

--Liseranius (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great idea, perhaps Immel can give us some details.

I know of some Somali personal genomic customers, these are the collected results:

E1b1b1a1b 70.59% (12/17)

E1b1b1b2 11.76% (2/17)

(E1b1b1 total: 82.35%)

T 11.76% (2/17)

J1 5.88% (1/17)

Spreadsheet with haplotypes: [3]

The individuals who tested for T was a Somali individual from Djibouti and the other from Northwestern Somalia near the Djiboutian border with Somalia. It matches the results from academic studies fairly well, albeit with a much lower coverage. No T samples with Northeastern origins have been observed so far.

Wadaad (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting spreadsheet, I will add the data to the map. I think that would be interesting to add the tribe and clan of each individual.

Uta Immel told me that unfotunately there is no way to know the name of the Somali Arab group or their location.

--Liseranius (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We try to avoid naming clans, especially because some people who are from the same paternal clan by oral tradition got different haplogroups so it isn't a watertight/perfect system.

I like how you edited the map, it better reflects the hg T distribution in the Horn.

Maybe a tip, Cruciani latest paper on the R1b sampled 65 people from Djibouti[4], unfortunately he didn't publish non-R1b samples but perhaps you could correspond with him to get more info regarding those samples (haplotypes etc), I have a feeling some are T.

You can get free access to the paper here: [5]

Since you seem quite knowledgeable on haplogroup T, I have one final question for you. Is the T found in Somalis closer to Egyptian-Ethiopian or Middle Eastern T? Perhaps this can give me some insight in how it came to the Eastern part of the Horn?

Wadaad (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However knowing the haplogroup frequencies in each clan will give us more information.

I think that Cruciani don't have analysed other marker besides of the R* and subclades markers. But maybe I will ask him about future studies with these samples.

The Somali from Djibouti is closer to Asyut (Upper Egypt), the closest haplotype to the Somali from Northwestern Somalia seems one from South Iran. Other Somalis are closer to one from Arabia (also North Portugal, ¿Nigeria?, Germany and South Iran), Some Somalis are closer to haplotypes from West Europe-Lybia-Upper Egypt-Lebanon-West Iran-Dubai, and finally one haplotype from Somalia is closer to several Europeans.

Would be good idea tell to these two T Somalis about join to the FTDNA T haplogroup project. They can test for subclade markers too. Can you contact with them?

--Liseranius (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to reach them and tell them to join if possible.

Thanks for all the information.

Wadaad (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liseranius (and other editors): This is an excellent page, well researched and clearly presented, and very many thanks for your contributions. For the very informative tables and distribution map, they appear well referenced and most sources are given. However some of the sources for the North European data don't appear to be given. Could you (or another Editor) possibly please give the following sources for: Gotland (2/40) = 5%; Swedes/ East Scandinavia/Orebo (1/32) = 3.1%; Scanians/South Scandinavia/Malmo (1/29) = 3.4%; Dutch, North Holland (1/18) = 5.6%; Flemish Dutch, Turnhout = 2.4%; Germans/ Berlin (4/103) = 3.9%; Rhinelanders/ Ripquarian/Koln (3/96) = 3.1%; Hutterites/Austro Bavarian/Tyrol (4/75) = 5.3%; Alsatians/ Alsace (4/80) = 5%; Southern Tyroleans/ Lower Vinschgau (1/32) = 3.1%. If you or someone could indicate the source of these data that would be very much appreciated! Many thanks, [nb I may also try and start a new thread] Sczsteve (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Haplogroup T-M184 page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

]

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Haplogroup T-M184. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Jim1138 (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Haplogroup T-M184. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.

Note: Jim1138 had warned you a few months ago. Please do not consistently add unsourced information to Haplogroup T-M184. Looking at the edit history, it seems as though such addition of unsourced content is persistent. JustBerry (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @GedalYah: Pinging involved editor. --JustBerry (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Haplogroup T-M184 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 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. JustBerry (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Materialscientist: See notices above. --JustBerry (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Grant | Talk 01:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

All of my last Edits are correctly sourced. This information is deleted actually by a Vandal. I have rescued this information the last Edits. I participed correctly in the Talk page and I have never got an answer in the last week. Liseranius (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, you discussed your edits on the talk page, but no, you did not establish a consensus for your edits there. Multiple editors have been reverting your changes. This does not appear to me to be a straight-forward case of vandalism reversion. It looks like an edit-war. Yamla (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

So many information correctly sourced have been deleted after blocking me. Take a look into historial. This is not only about blocking me or Edit war. However, unsourced information remains in the article without any reference. This shows a trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liseranius (talk • contribs) 02:32, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

Liseranius, blocking is not a step that I take lightly, but in this case I felt it was necessary. I also felt that I needed to remove many of your edits to the Haplogroup T-M184 article since October 2016. Many of the citations "lost" in that rollback have since been reinstated. No one has a problem with the introduction and re-introduction of reliable sources, in the form of citations and external links.

I feel that the above actions were justified because – considered as a whole and even if it was not your intent – many of your edits over the last few months have had the effect of breaching major principles of Wikipedia, such as

WP:CONSENSUS

. Many edits since October 2016 have (IMHO) have also or otherwise been at fault for:

• reverting/deleting the
  WP:GOODFAITH
  work of other editors (e.g. general copyediting, new references, links to other articles and external sites);
• reintroducing content deprecated by Wikipedia guidelines/other editors, e.g.
  • an
    WP:POV
    -pushing emphasis on
    • the presence of Haplogroup T in Europe/West Asia (as noted at Talk:Haplogroup T-M184 by User:70.75.29.86 in November 2016);
    • T1 (T-L206) in general and its primary subclade T1a (T-M70) in particular – which is why I moved a lot of overly-specific content to the new article
      Haplogroup T-L206 (Y-DNA)
      in October 2016
    • the general archaeology of Karsdorf and Ain Ghazal, as well as alleged
      'Ain Ghazal article or the new Karsdorf remains
      article ;
  • adherence to
    WP:ACCESSIBILITY
    , especially images, templates and formatting, such as the use of background colours in table cells that:
    • may severely affect readability for visually-impaired readers, and
    • adversely affect the time it takes to download (to read) and upload (when editing) the article, especially for readers in countries/locations with poor internet speeds (as noted at the talk page by User:GreyStrix on 31 May 2016 and User:117.214.75.56 on 26 October 2016) contributed little or nothing to the readability of and information conveyed by the article.

Grant | Talk 08:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liseranius,

I would appreciate your input at Talk:Haplogroup_T-M184#.22Ancient_DNA_from_Karsdorf. Thanks.

Grant | Talk 08:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your work on these matters, especially the original images, but – there are still a lot of problems with "Genetic landscape of Europe 7000 YBP" and I have re-add the "Factual accuracy disputed" tag. For my reasons please see: File talk:Genetic landscape of Europe 7000 YBP.png. Thanks.

Grant | Talk 02:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liseranius. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liseranius. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]