User talk:Marcosantezana

Heritability

You have added valuable content to the Heritability article. With all due respect, you need to protect yourself against the charge of original research. I urge you to review our policies Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia: Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources. The issue is not whether what you wrote was correct or incorrect, but that you can provide an independent (from you) source for it. I hope you accept this as constructive advice. These three policies, along with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view are the cornerstones of the project. Strictly complying with these policies will dramatically decrease the chance that you will come into conflict with a fellow-editor; when in a conflict with a fellow editor, referring to these polciies may help guide an effective resolution; being familiar with these policies will help sensitize you to places (that do not fully comply with these policies) where you can make valuable improvements to an article.

Also, the content you added to this article was generally about the meaning and use of the concept, "heritability." Do you think there would be value to adding material on common ways the concept is misunderstood or misused?

Welcome to Wikipedia and good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

i did not add anything that is original.

"adding material on common ways the concept is misunderstood"

yes, of course it is useful, but i believe i already saw some lines in that direction that could be polished and expanded perhaps.

If you did not add anything that was original, then you can and should cite your source. See the policies I mention above. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

i don't do not understand your questins. i worked on the introduction so citations about obvious stuff are unecessary. one could cite doug futuyma's book "Evolutionary Biology" among the general references though. it is considered the best among professionals.

if you want to worry about something please consider trying to clean up the utter non-sense that is a bit everywhere. you should realize that to do what i am trying to do is is hard work.

btw, the nonsense i keep finding everywhere and i have not yet had time to clean up was obviously accepted without citations since there could not be any ;)

read this for instance: "Natural selection does not distinguish between ecological selection and sexual selection, as it is concerned with traits, for example, dexterity of movement, on which both may operate simultaneously. "

this is sheer syllogistic nonsense. now tell me where are the citations for this gem ?  :)

cheers

  marcos