I am not saying that J2b2 have been in the balkans for 8000 years(because i don't believe that either), but i am just pointing out that i can be dangerous and an extreme waste of time to jump to conclusion so quickly, only based on one skeleton and 30% steppe ancestry. Waste of time i say, because you'll have to rewrite everything, every time a new paper comes out. These kinds of genetics are very young indeed, so it is easy to manipulate data now. But eventually everything will fall in its place, and then all these biased theories will be exposed and laughed at.
Therefore you should base you theories on what you really believe happened, not what you want to have happened, based on your own haplogroup.
Because being temporarily right, will never get you name in the history books for anything good. You will be remembered as that guy who singlehandedly tried to distort history, but was squashed like a fly, when the big Harvard and Cambridge guys came to the scene and saved the day.
You write entertaining texts and theories, but you have to be a little more objective. There are a lot of ignorants out there who read every word you write as it had descended from heaven in the form of pure truth. You should not misuse those ignorant peoples trust. Give them facts. And keep bias of off the picture. Who knows how many people think albanians aren't illyrians because of your sentence regarding Illyrians/albanians? Who knows how many people think R1a is some super-race or god-race which can enslave entire planets and rape aliens with their wagons, because of your bias.
In matters like these(where interests differ hugely), some sort of truth will eventually come out, because the research will be brought out at different locations(depending on which ancient DNA samples are being analyzed), and by different people. Maybe some Iberian and Italian will bend truth to fit own interests, while germans will do the same but in other interests. In the beginning, a lot of totally differing theories will arise, each with their own agenda. Then from these totally different theories, there will arise other theories, which take the best from each, and compile those points into other theories(which resembles the truth more and more). Eventually some kind of truth will arise from these theories.
Point is, the first theories in a subject are almost always remembered, and they are mostly ridiculed and seen as conservative and outdated(unlesss they are objective enough). Do you want researchers looking in some sort of electronic google archives, 50 years in the future, and say "This Maciamo guy, he really had some crazy theories. The bias and hidden agendas are pouring out like i have never seen anything pour before"
And yea you can probably just delete some articles now, and they will be forgotten forever. But if you ever publish anything serious, like an academic article, and you have as much bias as you have now, i can assure you, that people will laugh at you even long after your death.
Like those who said the earth was flat; that is how you'll be remembered if you ever take this kind of biased writing to the academic stage.