User talk:Warbola

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:14, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

"Negro"

I'm willing to concede that your recent addition at Negro is probably accurate, so I won't mess with it, but do you have any citations for any of this? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:33, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

My addition is based on reading newspapers in several languages over many years which are not easy to cite. But discussions about the topic are easy to find and here are some links. Sorry, none of them are in English (my comment was about discussions in foreign languages).

In Finnish : Is the word 'neekeri' offensive? http://www.verkkouutiset.fi/arkisto/Arkisto_1999/19.marraskuu/nekr4699.htm

In Swedish :What is wrong with the word 'neger'? (news article) http://www.bgf.nu/debattorer/baksi/neger.html

In Norwegian: (news article about word "neger" controversy) http://nrk.no/redskap/utskriftsvennlig/2754550.html

In Russian: About political correctness http://www.forum.msk.ru/print-only.cgi?file=991113155347

Warbola 22:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rhesus macaque DNA

Hi, Do you have a reference for humans and macaques share about 93% of their DNA sequence in the Rhesus Macaque article, please? The BBC report at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6550865.stm says rhesus macaque, chimp and humans share about 97.5% of the same genes and, following the link to Science, I found The average 3% difference between macaque and human genes... in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5822/216 --Cavrdg 18:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I relied on purported quote from Richard Gibbs The macaque genome agrees with the human genome 93 percent [1]. He is the leader of the whole project, which made it sound like a reliable source. I have seen other numbers too and am not sure where the difference comes from.Warbola 04:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a strange one. The Washington Post, which you'd think would be reliable, has about 97.5 percent similar to those of chimps and humans but the press release from the Human Genome Sequencing Center itself has The macaque genome differs by approximately seven percent from that of humans, while chimpanzees are just one to two percent different. I think I'll add the link to the press release to the article as a reference. --Cavrdg 06:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human evolution

The evolution of the 'human line' before the emergence of great apes group is not a distinct topic. While this would be an appropriate introduction to an article in a popular science magazine, in an encyclopedia we should be covering this topic in other places. 90% of your addition would apply equally to such articles as rodent evolution and cetacean evolution. Perhaps you could apply some of this toward mammal evolution and primate evolution, articles we definitely need. Thanks.--Pharos 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derrogatory name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Samoyedic_languages#Derrogatory_name Barefact 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalanobis distance

Dear User.

You contributed to the Mahalanobis distance article. Some of its content lacks citations for verification, has been challenged and may be removed. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references.Calimo (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]