User talk:ElMexicanotres

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Colombia. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know! The first source you cited is the outdated 2006 INMEGEN study the same research team later updated with triple the sample pool in 2009. They even took down the 2006 study for that reason. The 2009 version of that study is quite literally the exact version I had posted. The second publication you cited contains researchers looking at previous studies throughout Latin America and giving their conclusions on countries. They are not posting new admixture results themselves. Analyticalreview (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it has more people than the one you insist on keeping if you want one with new admixtures then I just presented a bunch there but you insist on just having one with only 300 people on it from 2009 ElMexicanotres (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you’re coming from but 1 study is NOT gonna represent Mexico ElMexicanotres (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And especially if it has only 300 people at least let’s agree to have multiple studies to represent it ElMexicanotres (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting the 2006 study if it is outdated by the 2009 publication then? Analyticalreview (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the 2006 study only has a sample pool of 100 people. Analyticalreview (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not use the old one that I put on that had many studies? That one seems to have a lot of people and it uses a lot of studies and newest one is from 2018 ElMexicanotres (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like using many studies that has 2000 people will do a better job of representing than like one that only has 300 ElMexicanotres (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]