User talk:Muntuwandi

Image copyright problem with Image:Skhul burial.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Skhul burial.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Skhul burial.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Skhul burial.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC) --Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kamuzu.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Kamuzu.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vinhtantran (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the image is currently discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving.jpg. Basically, because the image itself is not discussed in most of the articles, they do not meet WP:NFCC#8. Please feel free to discuss and raise any concerns. Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

Per [1] you're unblocked. This is conditional on WP:1RR and no use of socks, as per prior agreement. Happy editing William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million. I will abide. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I reckon it will be important for you to remember that some of the edits you have fought for in the past really were controversial, for example concerning the way you wanted to re-balance haplogroup M and haplogroup DE. You will have to accept that you'll never get those through based on just insisting over and over as you tried in the past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to give M and DE a fair assessment. Considering both the Asian origin and African origin, from both the DNA perspective and the archeological perspective. I think what I have suggested is the most accurate representation of most recent studies, and the articles in their current form are not doing that. I am getting concerned because other wiki projects in other languages are copying from the english version, and what they are copying is incorrect. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not only them that are copying things. This is indeed a widely used resource.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

As I keep learning, I take your suggestions very seriously. --Panehesy (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your remarks on Sub-Saharan DNA

With all due respect I suggest you remove this edit. I think it is counter productive because you are now addressing a person, not an argument. Leave that to him. Surely you've learnt by now that this just gives people an excuse to escalate any unpleasantness. It is simply not practical, and you should consider what aims you have and how you think you'll achieve them. You say that "it is still a good idea to get some of these matters resolved regardless of the outcome of the AFD". Please define (at least to yourself) "these matters", and what kind of resolution you think is possible. I think these matters probably include a long cycle of what you consider to be strongly POV editing, deleting and reverting, affecting the quality of the article? OK, so, how do you resolve these matters if you a suggesting ignoring the people who claim to have justifying arguments for those edits? This is Wikipedia remember? Like it or loath it, but don't complain about it not being under some single person's control, given that this is essential to what Wikipedia is. It is easy to go out and get yourself some webspace for a blog.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is wikipedia's policy to start out Assuming good faith, and I think I have assumed good faith with Small Victory and the others. Yet he has referred to some of my suggestions as "idiotic", calling me an Afrocentrist and Causteau has openly questioned my mental health. Having provided so much scientific evidence in which they have all chosen to ignore, I think it is only fair that I begin to question whether they are acting in good faith. In fact I have clear evidence of Small Victory misrepresenting sources in ways which could be interpreted as lying. It is all in the sources and any independent person can verify that Small Victory is deliberately misrepresenting information. So their is legitimate evidence to question whether the editors are in fact acting in good faith. I stand by the fact that you are trying to be "nice" with some of these editors at the expense of the articles. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't looking good William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if my comments are related to a specific editor. I am carefully watching over my comments, but at the same time, if some editors are not acting in the best interests of an article, I feel I should be able to point this out. Not to worry, I won't escalate things to unacceptable levels. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem agreeing that Small Victory's behavior is not acceptable sometimes, and I have mentioned it on his talkpage. But leave it to him to act this way! Your interventions in the past made it very difficult for others to calm down discussions and get to the beef, as I think you realize yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I still suggest you remove that posting. It is a distraction to discussion about specific matters in the article in question, and that is not going to encourage any progress.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you acknowledge that Small Victory's behavior is sometimes not acceptable, I will remove the posting. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That should not be the reason.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt

Muntuwandi, there is something I do not understand. People brought the issue of socks in the article AERC. But if remember well, you stopped editing for months now that article under the name Muntuwandi. Am I wrong? I would understand the whole issue if you were using both manes in the same article. But as far as I know that was not the case. Is this issue of socks just a construction in order to ban people who share more or less your views about ancient Egypt?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was last seriously involved in the article two years ago. That was before Urthogie and Taharqa were edit warring, I thought things were getting too heated. I think Vassyana has offered to be an informal mediator. If he agrees to be neutral, I think it might be a good idea if everyone accepts his offer. That may help in resolving the dispute. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

This is a courtesy note to inform you that the set of five recent Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic bans by Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) has been raised at arbitration enforcement for review: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review. I am informing you because you are an involved party or commented at the arbitration clarification request. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to leave me a talk page message. --Vassyana (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)