No, sorry, you don't understand me, and haven't over several articles, because you radically misconstrued a straightforward sentence, transforming a phrase implying deference to editors better informed than I, into a boast of being an authority, i.e. totally inverting its meaning. I'm not the problem. The issues I raise have been raised by other editors, some with a far better scientific background than I have, and a stronger grasp of wikipedia policy than I can claim to have.
You still fail to get the point, and refuse to construe the plain meaning of English sentences which request information from you, hitherto lacking, which show you understand wikipedia policy. Several of your articles are not compliant with WP:RS (Simple to Remember.Judaism online' and its article by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman).  I have no trouble in following the technical arguments in these papers. I have, at the same time, no evidence you are a geneticist, no evidence you understand scientific method, no evidence you understand the internal contradictions in the highly nuanced and often conflicting results of the 23 papers you cite (and which I have read), no evidence you understand relevant imput from contiguous, and related disciplines on historical origins, linguistic evidence. Most of the evidence suggests the contrary, i.e., that you have difficulty in understanding the implications of what is a WP:OR set of assertions that govern your evaluation of text. 
You are consistently holding out against papers written by accomplished geneticists, whose conclusions are not those you privately entertain. Unless you can show peer criticisms of their conclusions, and peer comments in RS that affirm that, as of 2012, there is such a thing as 'scientific consensus' none of your objections hold.