User talk:Jheald/Archive 5

Orphaned non-free image (File:Puffin Books logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Puffin Books logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

If you have not yet seen it, the exchange we had elsewhere appears to have developed on Jimbo Wales' talk page at 'Crown Copyright - effectively free?' Salisian (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Alternate album covers

Hi- it's generally considered polite to notify users when you mention them (as you mentioned me in this post) so that they can offer an explanation, or at least know what is being said about them. I noticed this by chance, seeing as I am an albums project member and have the talk page watchlisted. It would be good of you to let Peripitus and Stifle know about the conversation. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with image policy is that it is often best to go "under the radar" like that to avoid trouble- put simply, a lot of users don't understand the basics of image policy, and will fight tooth and nail to retain images. When there are many offending images, and few admins willing to work the thankless realms of non-free content policing, the quickest, most painless way of dealing with the issue is often the most preferable. As you know from the sports team logo discussions (which I am taking a break from for now) discussion of the subject can often seem to get nowhere. A similar situation arises with BLP concerns- because there are a lot of people who just don't get it, but it is such an important policy, it can be sometimes best to effectively sneak the corrections through- no big notifications, no inane conversation. I'm sure (or, at least, I hope) we can get somewhere on the WikiProject talk page with this- IfD just isn't suited to removals of this sort for logistical reasons, nevermind philosophical ones. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jheald, I have left an opening note on the wikiproject page. As J Milburn says it would be good if you could discuss this with me. You will find that I am open and reasonable - Peripitus (Talk) 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Railway stations missing coordinates

I just thought I'd let you know that I've added more stations to User:The Anome/Disused UK railway stations still lacking coordinates as of Nov 2008. Thanks for all your efforts! -- The Anome (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD for WP:NFC #8 deletions

I'm concerned that you have again been using CSD for material that you consider fails NFCC #8, but where by no means all would accept your assessment. (Compare the discussion at WT:ALBUMS#Alternate_album_covers that you are aware of, where I previously raised this concern.)

FYI, I have removed the CSD tags from a number of items, and raised the issue at WT:CSD; including a reference to your and Peripitus's previous discussion, as previously raised at WT:ALBUMS.

CSD is a process for non-controversial deletion. These very controversial image deletions should be going to IfD. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

I'm concerned that you aren't distinguishing between CSD and delayed speedy deletion. The {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} and family are used where an image may fail the fair use criteria. They are not speedy deletion tags, but if they are uncontested for a week, the issue is clearly uncontested, and the image may then be deleted.

Any editor (other than the editor who uploaded the image) may remove those, at which stage the person who placed the disputed tag may raise an FFD.

I'll continue the discussion at WT:CSD as it will otherwise be fragmented. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, thank you for notifying me of the WT:ALBUMS thread. I don't think my participation there would serve any useful purpose, because the participants in the discussion are already entrenched in a belief that all images of all album covers whatsoever are inherently permissible, and that I am part of a cabal seeking to remove them from the encyclopedia. I don't think that anything I can do will be able to amend that entrenched belief, different as it is to Wikipedia policy. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationales

Just a note to point out that fair use rationales need to cover how an image meets each of the points at WP:NFCC. Just saying "not replaceable because the subject is dead" is unlikely to be enough. See WP:NFURG for some more ideas. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

One other thing, the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template is specifically authorized by the fair use policy (Wikipedia:FU#Enforcement), so removing it because "CSD is for non-disputed deletions" isn't really accurate. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I just thought I'd point out one other thing — Wikipedia_talk:CSD#.22Non_controversial.22 explains a lot about "non-controversial" in the context of speedy deletion. In short, the criteria have to be non-controversial; whether an individual article meets the criteria or not is not always going to be non-controversial. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thorne (old) and Thorne Lock

There could be a further complication, i.e. both were known as Thorne Lock. On the map I have, the first station nearer the junction with the line to Thorne North is known as "1st", and the following station to the west as "Thorne Lock 2nd". Any ideas!? Lamberhurst (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Lamberhurst (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of History of quaternions

An article that you have been involved in editing, History of quaternions, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of quaternions. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. A. di M. (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

British Military Intelligence Systems in Northern Ireland

Thanks for caring :) Edit wars are why I no longer really look at wikipedia.

Do you think you could attempt the same with Force Research Unit I noticed that the same person gutted it too.

Y chromossomal Aaron

Hi Jheald. I am here trying to obtain a consensus with you. : )I believe that you are directly related to the J Haplogroup project in FTDNA. I respect your project very much. Congratulations for it! You have dedicated "your life" in there. I can fell it. Let me be honest with you, again. The way you wrote the article, looks like the J1 CMH are the real Kohanim, while the J2 Cohanim is not included. I believe that the way you wrote the article, looks like the J2 Cohanim are out of the context completely, when you know that this is not the case. Two weeks ago I receive two emails from Dr. Karl Skorecki. The content is confidencial. However, one thing I can tell you. He himself explained to me that J2 Cohanim has the accurately coalescence to Pinchas, while J1 CMH has a much older ancestor. He told me that the new paper will be published very soon. I believe that you already know that. Now, J2 Cohanim must be considerate in the article too. We cannot ignore them, that´s not a right thing to do. You can keep all the currently information in the article, (I will no object to it). When I received the article from Anatole Klyosov, stating that J2 Cohanim has the precisely coalescence do Pinchas, (just like Skorecki told me in his email) I realize that this whole discovery open a window for J2 Cohanim too. Now, what I am only asking you is to allow Anatole and me, to include one new section there. Since you asked to take the term “Zadokite” is not appropriate (at this moment) we decided to take this term out of the context, as well as the attribution to Bustenai. (at this moment, Nature have not published Anatole article that contains all the detailed explanations. But will very very soon). So, let’s leave this information out of the new section as well. The only thing we want to add, (and for that we don’t want to call disputes or edits wars), it is the table containing 12 traditional Kohanim surnames along with the Haplotype tree formed by those 12 families. We cannot ignore in any circumstance that those J2 families have much more in common than a haplotype only, but, they all carry in common the tradition of being from Cohanim houses in Askenazim and Sephardim community, printed in their surnames, easily verify by official records, archives, and also web link references . If you can help us add in that table another different traditional Cohanim surname not listed there, that is 100% recognized in Askenazim and Sephardim community, in J2 category, please, send it to me. I will appreciate that, and certainly will ask Anatole to include on the table and on the haplotype tree picture. We can work together always. Is that okay with you?

Here is the information for new section text:

The Cohanim J2 haplotype is noticeably younger (in terms of time spans to their common ancestors) compared to Jews with J1 CMH. The ancient common ancestor for the J2 Cohanim lived 3,100±200 years before present (BP), exactly around the date of the birth of Pinchas, the grandson of Aaron Hakohen. Dr. Karl Skorecki, the founder of CMH, reported during a Conference for Kohanim in Jerusalem 2007, that he and his research team have discovered not one but two Cohen Modal Haplotypes, which he called J1 and J2. “Pinchas the zealot mentioned in the Bible may be the origin of J2” said Skorecki. J2 Cohanim and Jews with J1 CMH are descendants of two different ancestor of which J2 lineage has the accurately coalescence to Pinchas, and J1 Jews with CMH to ancestor who lived 4,000±200 years BP, around one thousand years before Aaron Hakohen - Pinchas. Below we can see the J2 Cohanim haplotype tree formed by the traditional Cohanim surnames recognized in both Askenazim and Sephardim communities. This is how the scientific genetic computer software placed them, considering their haplotypes. The computer program composes a tree by analyzing mutations, mutations rates, and how many steps are needed to get from a common ancestor for the entire tree to each haplotype. The more mutations, the more levels, the higher the branch (or a haplotype). Only one different Cohanim surname was used in this table to represent the modal haplotype of each present-day J2 Cohanim family found both in Askenazim and Sephardim communities. (Table + Haplotype tree picture). The upper branch (12,13,14) is the Sephardim branch. All three J2 Cohanim families listed are from Portugal and has a surname and tradition directly linked to Sephardi Cohanim. In J2 Ashkenazim branch, they have two low branches. One branch has a common ancestor who lived 275 years a go, in 18th century. There is only 1 mutation in 48 markers. The second branch came from one common ancestor who lived around 925 years ago. They have 4 mutations on 60 markers. In fact, one can see two "younger" sub-branches there. Sephardim Cohanim have five mutations per 36 markers, or 2075 years from a common ancestor. In fact, all three lineages of Cohanim are coming from one common ancestor. The height of the branch shows how early the common ancestor lived compared to other branches. The common ancestor for all J2 Cohanim branches listed above and formed by Cohanim Askenazi and Cohanim Sephardi, lived 2175 years ago.

(Here are some references only)

01 - Understanding of Jewish priests’ geneology - July 18, 2007 • By Gil Zohar - http://israelplug.com/art-and-culture/jewish-priests-geneology-and-roles/

02 - Cohen Pereira or Cohen Paraira family – Some references in internet: (1a) “As the deportation of the Jews of Holland gathered momentum in the autumn of 1942, the Cohen Paraira family of four fled their house in Scheveningen, near the Hague, and looked for a place to hide. The father, David, and the son Bob (subsequently Avraham) found refuge on a large farm belonging to the Crum family, who lived in the village of Rhenen, near Arnhem” http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/netherlands/crum.html . ; (1b)“The Righteous Among the Nations from Norway, the Netherlands, and Poland to be Recognized at Yad Vashem Ceremonies” On June 6, 2007, a ceremony posthumously honoring five Dutch people took place in the Garden of the Righteous at Yad Vashem in the presence of children of the Righteous and survivors (Holocaust). Albartha and Klaas Crum hid the “Cohen Paraira” family for a year and a half in their home in Rhenen. Survivors of the Holocaust Avraham Cohen Paraira and Elisheva Lehman Cohen Paraira attended the ceremony.” http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_yad/press_room/press_releases/31.05.07.html (2) Cohen Paraira R. van D. – and - Benjamin van Jacob Rodrigues Pereira,two top Sephardim artist that have work published at Jewish Historical Museum – Amsterdam. http://www.jhm.nl/resourcecentre.aspx?database=joodsepers&trefwoord=Cohen%20Treves,%20R.%20van%20M. (03) David Ph. Cohen Paraira (President Portuguese Jewish Sinagogue) -(Cohen Paraira et al, 1991) Book - De Snoge, monument van Portugees Joodse cultuur. http://www.jodensavanne.sr.org/article1.html (04) Mashuah Cohen Pereira – The Sephardi Association of Cohanim – Brazil. Elected President 2006. (05) Frederico Gazel Cohen Pereira - National Brazilian Champion in Chess.

(03) Cohen Rodrigues family – Some references in internet: From Genealogical Department of the Center for Research on Dutch Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem – 425 family members found - http://shum.huji.ac.il/~dutchjew/genealog/cohen_rodrigues/index.htm Some: (01) Moses Cohen Rodrigues “Hij woonde bij zijn zoon Salomon in februari 1941” . (02) Jacob Cohen Rodrigues – (died 1 Feb 1943 Auschwitz, occupation) (03) Aaron Cohen Rodrigues (birth 22 Feb 1835 Amsterdam) (04) Artur Cohen Rodrigues (Lisboa 1877-1961) (writer; Vida - Portugal)http://shum.huji.ac.il/~dutchjew/genealog/cohen_rodrigues/index.htm

Take care, lets keep in touch. See ya! --Chris Cohen (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus

Let´s reach a consensus Jheald. I noticed that you add plenty of tags in the new section. By doing that, you are open the door for Anatole and me to do the same thing in the section that has the tagg - (This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (March 2009) – by Astronalt.) wrote by you. For example, if we do not reach on consensus about a neutral final section, than we will tag J2a1k*, L24, L25,

For that table that contains this J2a1k, L24, L25 and etc thing, you wrote this sentence:

"The next sequence of rows identify other 6-marker haplotypes in haplogroup J found to occur more than once in the sample of 145 Cohanim tested in Behar et al (2003)[4] (table B (web-only) in that paper). Probable extensions of these haplotypes to 12 markers are shown, where it has been possible to find corresponding clusters of Cohen-type names in publicly accessible DNA databases, together with the apparent sub-clade of haplogroup J. This is more possible for the apparently Ashkenazi clusters than for SephardisItalic text, who are much less strongly represented in the databases." (see your tecniques please)

If this is the kind of tecnique that you used to write that secton, I asked Mr Anatole Klyosov to write in the same way, using the same techniques that you used. I asked him to write in a neutral point of view. I hope that you will like it, and make no more objections. This will avoid us to tagg plenty citations all over the article, as Anatole pointed to me.

Conclusion:

Anatole will re-write the new section, improving the sentences that you tag there. Please, lets not make a war out of it. We will not tag the other section there, not citations all over the article. We dont want to take it to this level. What I am asking you, is to consider the new version that Anatole is writing in order to avoid future wars for both sides. Lets avoid complications. (also, I dont want to post this private conversation post between me and you in the discussion page there, so editors can see that I am trying to reach a consensus)

In the meanwhile, you can re-write that other section there, and we will not tag anything, and make no objections to it. I am here trying to reach a consensus, and this is going to be good and perfect for both sides. Please. don tag the new version of the section to avoid wars between two people that can became best friends and partners in future studies, datas and etc.--Chris Cohen (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jheald. Thank you for your replay. I appreciate your effort to reach a consensus. This is a nice attitude and shows the spirit of union, just like Aaron himself (who this article is about) did it all the time and in all circumstances (Talmud). Thank you.

I noticed that Astronaut removed the tags, and he said "There's no need to flag every statement as OR if the section is flagged OR" Jheald, you went back there and insisted on the tag?. You are open the door for Anatole do the same thing all over the article. You dont want that at all, neither him or me. Now, I am here trying to obtain a consensus with you. I convinced Anatole to remove comparations between J1 CMH and J2 Cohanim. He accepted and sent me the text with all the final modifications. Now, it is very well pointed that the table and graphic listed in that section is not generalized, but a example of 12 "different" families, from different countries, that has a close match in this cluster. This is the best Anatole can do, as he pointed to me. If you want to call dispute, he will accepted! So, lets leave this final version, very well explained in a conservative form, just the way you like it! :)

Jheald, I dont like idea of the website of the cohanim brazilian association linked in this article at all. We have a portuguese language, and this website is to serve and inform members of the association only. Thank you very much for your offer. I felt pretty honored. The cohanim association has a project in FTDNA, called Cohen Askenazim and Sephardim Project, just like others also do. I am the administrator of the Cohen Askenazim and Sephardim Project at FTDNA. Mr. Bennet Greenspan is a wonderfull person, treat me very good, and I admire him very much for his attitudes toward me, and for his unique and valuable company - FTDNA. I am glad that I can considerate him a "virtual friend". But this info is out of the context.

Jheald, that table is based on haplotypes found in Cohen Askenazim and Sephardim Project at FTDNA just like you selected some CMH haplotypes found in J Haplogroup project and Cohen Project. The 12 markers that you added in your table, is also displayed on the Cohen Askenazim and Sephardim Project at FTDNA. But this time, the table is for 12 haplotypes found that formed a cluster.

Lets reach a consensus! You have to re-write the other section, if you dont make no more objections or no more tags in this new modified section, than Anatole and me will do exactly the same thing on the others sections. Eye for and eye? No Jheald, lets reach a consensus and you can keep your work in the others setions. Anatole and me will not make objections and place tags there. This is not good at all. Please,accept this new section, dont place tags. And you are free to work in the rest of the article.

Yes, you showed database from Project at FTDNA, just like we did it. Ware equal on that! “and it gives the tag that site uses to describe them” Nice point. We will point the the Project at FDNA, just like you correctly did it “you and Anatole propose makes lots of claims, which are very questionable and based on an analysis by Anatole which other people simply do not share”. Jheald you did the same thing. You have added material without endorsements, based in inconclusive and not definitive analysis, not published by any official scientific journal. Remember that Anatole has a preeciding at Nature. You are not even close to get some of your material approved by the board of director of Nature and taken to Proceedings. Remember that right after its publication (very soon), the information there can be added fully into this article, because it deals with Cohanim haplotypes as well as CMH, and has Nature as a source. Lets not make war, please. Lets reach a consensus. This is the final version that Anatole sent me

Dr. Karl Skorecki, the founder of CMH, reported during a Conference for Kohanim in Jerusalem 2007, that he and his research team have discovered not one but two Cohen Modal Haplotypes, which he called J1 and J2. “Pinchas the zealot mentioned in the Bible may be the origin of J2” said Skorecki. According to the observed mutations rates, certain J2 haplotypes share a common ancestor who lived 3100+/-200 years bp. Below we can see the J2 Cohanim haplotype tree formed by 12 traditional Cohanim surnames found on Cohen Askenazim and Sephardim project at FTDNA. This is how the scientific genetic computer software placed them, considering their haplotypes. Only one different Cohanim surname was used in this case to represent the closest haplotype found in each family that could best represent and join the exclusive cluster below formed by these 12 haplotypes. The upper branch (12,13,14) is the Sephardim branch. All three J2 Cohanim families listed are from Portugal and have a surname and tradition directly related to Sephardi Cohanim. In this particular case presented with table and graphic, J2 Ashkenazim branch have two low branches. One branch has a common ancestor who lived 275 years ago, in 18th century. There is only 1 mutation in 48 markers. The second branch came from one common ancestor who lived around 925 years ago. They have 4 mutations on 60 markers. Also in this scenario, Sephardim Cohanim have five mutations per 36 markers, or 2075 years from a common ancestor. In fact, all three lineages of Cohanim are coming from one common ancestor. The height of the branch shows how early the common ancestor lived compared to other branches. The Cohanim Sephardim is the oldest lineage compared to Cohanim Ashkenazim. The common ancestor for all J2 Cohanim branches listed above formed by Cohanim Askenazi and Cohanim Sephardi lived 2175 years ago, according to their 12 markers presented in this section.

Jheald, thre is no more J1CMH is this context, no comparations, and the graphics and tables are explicited as based on these 12 haplotypes found on a project in FTDNA. It says also that the table, graphics and results are based on their haplotypes, no generalazing. Readers will understand that for sure.

Anatole sent me the references for the Genetic Computer software that was used to build the graphic and table, along with others. Please, lets reach a consensus. Take care and remember. If you make no more objections, than you a free to work other sections. IF not, be prepared for a edit war, as Anatole pointed to me. Lets make peace. Lets work together. Take care!--Chris Cohen (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jheald, I appreciate your feedback and effort to reach a consensus. Thank you for that. Nice spirit! Jheald, we are not interesting in adding a "link" in the article. No, this is absolutely not "negociable". One thing you still you dont seem to understand. If you fell that there is ANY other Cohanim surname that is not displayed there, in J2, please send it to me. We will add it. Again, these are the only Cohanim surnames and haplotypes found all over the database of FTDNA and YSEARCH. What are you expecting? More than 12 different Cohanim surnames, from different countries, all forming a unique cluster with haplotypes in commun? Again, for a Cohanim graphic we cannot use 50 individuals from the Katz family, plus 25 individuals from Kaplan, 30 from Kahan. This is not a graphic cluster for any family in especific, but a global cluster, where only one different surname is allowed to represent each family. Remember that we have located 12 different houses, from different countries, and this is a miracle, for sure.

It simply does not work at all to add more members from the same family members. We have located 12 different haplotypes from Cohanim families around the world, and we are showing a cluster that was formed with them. This is beautifull Jeald! This is NOT about quantity, but about quality samples from DIFFERENT Cohanim families. Again, there is no more different Cohanim surname from J2, that could be added there. IF you find any other Cohanim surname, not listed there, in J2, that can join that haplotype cluster, ``please``, let me know! We will add it there right away. But,dont waste your time. This is it. One cannot add any other surname there, because simply there is no more. 12 is a huge number, dont you see? This is huge, big and excelent. All Cohanim surnames (one per family of course) found in J2, with a haplotype that stand for the cluster was added. The only Cohanim surnames that was not added there, is Kagan,and this is because all Kagans (only 3 Kagans was tested) are all from J1, therefore does not fit the cluster, of course. But, all others 12 different cohanim families joined the cluster automaticaly based on their haplotype.

I challenge you to do the same thing in J1. You will never obtain this huge results. Try yourself to find 12 `different` cohanim surnames from different countries, both from Askenazim and Sephardim, in J1 group and see if they can form a exclusive cluster with all the clear matches between them, as we showed from 12 different cohanim families in J2. In J1 you will never be able to form a cluster with 12 different cohanim surnames. At most with only 3-4 different surnames related to Cohanim. So, please, dont tell me that this new section is not informative, that there is `only` 12 haplotypes. This is it. 12 is a huge number. I really hope we can find more different cohanim surname to add there, but only Kagan is missing. There is no more possibilites at all.

JHeald, do your changes on the other sections the way you like it, we will not place tags or make objections to it. We have reach a consensus and for that we remove all the claims that you asked for, the comparisions with J1CMH. Now, it is conservative, neutral and this is it. Please, I am asking you not to place tags or make objections to avoid edit war with Anatole. We have to work together, keeping the dialogue always, and share databases to increase the quality of our researches. Count with me to help you in any circunstance. You and Anatole together can became best friends, and do wonderfull works and studies together. I was wondering, how greatfull this team would be. Lets make peace, reach consensus and move on. Take care, see ya, talk to me anytime. From you new partner. : )--Chris Cohen (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

History of quaternions

At least as I write, this is the history section from quaternion, somewhat expanded. Could you look it over, and add appropriately? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at Genius101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

gENIUS101 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Muhammad ibn Muhammad Tabrizi

On May 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muhammad ibn Muhammad Tabrizi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility for copyright

Greetings. First off, thank you for identifying that VOACAP software is not copyrighted. I'm glad to learn that these are free images, and I have withdrawn those nominations.

But secondly, I see that you opined on several entries that a given graph or chart of public data does not possess sufficient creativity to be eligible for copyright. I have given a rebuttal at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26#Nauen_Antenna-vectors.png, and I ask you to reconsider. After all, we all agree that a PD replacement could be created which would have no copyright concerns. Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

See also

I don't think it's needed. If relevant links will be in the article text anyway. If not what's the point? --Wadq (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chrisbot

No, it's perfectly normal. As said on the bot's page the uCONTl and uCONTr have to be swapped. To do this it:

1. changes uCONTl to CHRISBOT
2. now that uCONTl is free, it changes uCONTr to uCONTl
3. now that uCONTr is free, it changes CHRISBOT (the original uCONTl) to uCONTr

While it's working it may be a bit messy, but this is only tempory, and will be put back as before (but with the right icon names). ChrisDHDR 16:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you not have added that it's temporary, and made the icon it temp goes to the correct one, only misnamed? That way there's no disruption. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence??

Can you please provide substantiated evidence for your statements about the reasons why you undid the text on this page? ('Biblical Narratives and the Qur'an).

Thanks, --Lskil09 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

(Please see my reply to your comment on my talk page. Thanks).--Lskil09 (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jonathan King/GA2

re GA & random <ref>'s : Thanks for pointing out the small print to me. I'll become a contributer after all... Problem: Though I find numerous reliable examples of print citations, as an MOS matter I'm not finding a consistent, reliable guide for formatting all the various <ref>'s we use, esp. for including info from electronic/web media. I do find content suggestions for <ref>'s using web sources, ie., Citation_styles; but what I could use and have never seen is a collection of acceptable boilerplates or templates for a variety of <ref> situations. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 18:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, request for more help.

Thanks for answering. Thanks for agreeing with me. To help me better resolve my debate with these people on the internet, could you please either refer me to an academic expert or take a little bit more of a look at the overall algorithm and blog debates that I linked (it is more than just a simple PCA). It's PCA followed by ridge regression. And the issue is if it is ok for some sensors to end up having a total negative weight, within the overal reconstruction. 69.250.46.136 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the blog world to discuss PCA. Could you please come back and just nail it down with Ryan and Jeff. I just want to settle this stupid little point. 52.129.8.48 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Empirical Bayes

The article Bayesian probability cites Turing, Good, etc. as being Bayesian.

Please do not remove statements about "Empirical Bayes" from that article (again) without substantial justification; such justification could entail removing Turing and Good also. Thanks for your consideration. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Call for opinion on a neutrality accusation in a human genetics related article

As a fellow member of the WikiProject HGH may I ask for opinions on this accusation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John G.F. Francis

On July 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John G.F. Francis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the rush

Would you mind leaving the picture at Pederasty in place until some consensus develops? Thank you. Haiduc (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I still do not see what the big rush is, when the matter has just entered discussion. What is "NSFW"? Haiduc (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC draft

Hey. I know you've been heavily involved in image policy wonkery and such, so I thought you were the person to approach. Basically I've started a draft copy of an RfC which I hope to garner widespread input regarding whether non-free SVGs meet WP:NFCC. I've started the bare minimum at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free SVGs. My plan is essentially to have an overview of NFCC, et al, to educate the less "in the know types". Then I basically wanted two well-thought-out point-counterpoint views on the subject. Since I found your arguments at WT:NFC the most lucid and referred to, I was wondering if you'd like to draft your opinions? I'm busy in real life and in the wikiworld so I'm not sure when I'll have my own side done, but once we're happy with the overview and substance I figured we'd spam all the relevant noticeboards and get a WP:CENT notice up as well to try and gather all the horses to the well, as it were. I was figuring if we're comprehensive enough in our overviews, we can have a simple straw poll below with room for shades of other proposals. Either we end up with something definitive or we know where to fix things later. Ping me on my talk if you have question, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your contribution to the pederasty article

How can you defend such a blatant piece of off the cuff editorializing as that contribution by the anon this AM???

Trade Secrets are not property

see Talk:Intellectual_property#Trade_Secrets_are_not_property174.21.105.213 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Poorman's Talkback Notice

Please see the "Proposal" section of the "Gallery Images" thread for my response to your post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: CSD

I would be fine with J Milburn withdraw his CSDs for the meantime while the WP:MCQ discussion goes forth. I will say, as I have seen in past discussions with this subject, it does get heated....civil (sorta) but heated. I really don't want to be apart of it, but I have kinda gotten dragged into the middle of it by another user.

Anyway, if you like, you could leave a note for J Milburn asking him if he will withdraw his CSD as he might do it for you and not me after our discussion on the images, I don't think he is willing to do me many favors. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, works for me. If you need me in the meantime, feel free to post on my talkpage. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am not going to withdraw the images. However, I am happy to restore the images if it is determined that they are required. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Branding timeline/doc

Just to let you know that I support your recent edits here- I have added another note, but you are welcome to revert/modify if you disagree. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: IfD

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at OrangeDog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Removed rationales

I removed the rationales because the articles they refer to do not exist. They were deleted as a result of the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The West Wing presidential election, 1998 (2nd nomination) Don't you dare accuse me of being underhanded when you're not even doing basic groundwork to understand why the rationales were bad in the first place. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Logos and J Milburn again

See User talk:Powergate92#KPNX and User talk:J Milburn/archive38#Re: KPNX. Powergate92Talk 20:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for going way above and beyond what was necessary with regard to the Mighty Boosh images. I'd like to DRV the deleted one, but I'm tired - chasing around a pagemove vandal and getting him blocked and going through the labourious process of undoing his damage - and not very articulate at the moment, but I'm deferring to User:OrangeDog to see what he wants to do. Radiopathy •talk• 19:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, DRV started by OrangeDog. Radiopathy •talk• 02:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Frankfurt am Main

Hi Jheald, sorry but I reverted you here as we seem to have gone from two working links to one redlink by your edit. I mention it in case it was part of a larger scheme you were working on, and I've just messed it up, in which case sorry! Cheers, DBaK (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have your finger on the pulse! x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.39.121 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The edit summary makes all the difference! :) DBaK (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks, we're out of phase in this conversation! :) DBaK (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK So why do you enjoy reverting?

There is a talk page on the Template.PB666 ^yap 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (cur) (prev) 08:06, 20 October 2009 Jheald (talk | contribs) (1,568 bytes) (rv to previous image. Do you want to talk about this, or shall we just go on reverting each other?) (undo)

You might want to take a look and engage the discussion here. WT:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History#Changing_the_project_banner

please look at the talk page of Maximum entropy thermodynamics

Please look at the talk page on Maximum entropy thermodynamics about The nature of probabilities in statistical mechanics.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Your criticisms are helpful and constructive - I'll get to work on them right away. Jimharlow99 (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am going through the picayune aspects of tightening up the text of Jewish Philosophy to remain focused upon a constant thread of "Jewish Philosophy" and the relevant historical contributions thereto. I've managed to refine the text to 73 kilobytes - to the essence of my intended update to this wiki page. I should be finished with the Picayune edits tomorrow afternoon - then I'll shift my attention to building the tables. Can you take a quick peek at it and verify that it is moving in the direction that you, as an editor, would find acceptable? Your comments, harsh or otherwise, are welcome. Jimharlow99 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jheald, I left a plea at Template talk:Infobox settlement#Use to illustrate non-settlement articles? which should help illustrate the noteworthy fact that those push-pins represent small Jewish Communities that were essential to the survival of Judaism in Western Europe through the Medieval period, enlightenment and post-enlightenment periods. I hope that helps. Jimharlow99 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I received some helpful comments at Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#Use_to_illustrate_non-settlement_articles?; I'll swap out the current maps and replace them with {{location map}} template instead. This will take me a couple of days.Jimharlow99 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:nofootnotes

Can I suggest a bit more care with this footnote?

When articles are tagged {{1911}} or {{JewishEncyclopedia}} or some other out-of-copyright source, it is a pretty robust indicator that the whole thing has probably been lifted verbatim from that source.

When that is the case, is {{nofootnotes}} really appropriate? Far from the sources being "unclear", a quick comparison with the cited work will as often as not reveal the source for every single word.

Can I therefore suggest you get your bot to be rather more judicious with articles that have templates like {{1911}} or {{JewishEncyclopedia}} ? Jheald (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, Coreva will now check for these templates (And all their aliases) and will ignore tagging an article for references and footnotes in case they are found. My thanks for the notice, as i was not aware of the excistance of these templates, leave alone what they signal. One of the main issues a bot such as Coreva has is that there are exceptions regarding each maintenance template, which have to be coded before Coreva understands the exception - as in this case that it should not tag 1911 and JE templates article's for references. Then again, i did not even know so myself so it would have been impossible to add before you notified me. Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia changes

• So I took a look at the changes you've made, and I have one BIG problem. The project is called "MISSING encyclopedic articles". I figure that if an article is bluelinked and isn't a stub, then it is no longer missing, and thus should be deleted. I understand that you'd like the articles to be indexed so that they could be easily found later on, but that's why we have categories. Again, if the article exists then it should be pruned from the list. Just something to take under consideration. Eyeball kid (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Antonia of Württemberg

On November 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antonia of Württemberg, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 13:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Exchequer of the Jews

The main issues with the article at this point, is it is a bit hard to follow if you do not already know some information on the topic or have legal training. As someone with legal training and some limited knowledge of Jewish history, even I struggled to piece everything together. Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, and the articles need to be accessible to the common reader. Along those lines, the WP:LEAD is rather short for an article, and could use more context/explanation. Next, the article relies overwhelmingly on a single source, and a source that is over 100 years old. I would hope some more modern scholars with more modern approaches to historical scholarship would have covered this topic. Historical scholarship and methods have some a long ways in the last 100 years. JSTOR and Google Books are two good places to start if you have not already (along with the items in the further reading section). Next, minor WP:MOS issue, words in headers are not capitalized unless they are the first word in the header or are a proper noun (i.e. Deeds and cases). Then, and this relates to the first point, what is a Chirograph, and what is a starr? It is easier for the reader to follow if you take the time to spell out, in limited detail, what these are (and Starr is a dab page with nothing there that looks relevant), so the reader knows without having to leave the article. They can then leave for further info, but really specialized terms like these need to be explained in the article. Something like a court, doesn't as this is a very common term. But if you think your average high school student is going to have to look it up, then you likely need to spell it out for them. Lastly, a readability item, which I am also guilty of myself, but I try not to do it in article space, which is to use run on sentences, which have lots of commas, and though they cover common issues, these long sentences with lots of commas can easily be broken into multiple sentences, which improves readability, or at least I like to think so, but I could be mistaken, and it would not be the first time I was mistaken. Hopefully this past sentence illustrates the issue.

All in all, this is a great start to the topic. With some expansion and minor tweaks, you can elevate this to eventual GA status. Let me know if you have any questions. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Exchequer of the Jews

On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Exchequer of the Jews, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Madox

On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Madox, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hammer et al 2009

Jheald, Hammer's response was riduculed, and rightly so, on RootsWeb forum. It does not contain arguments and no scientific value. What it does contain? 1) That Anatole Klyosov was too fast with his article 2) The Zhivotovsky method can be good 3) That the haplotype trees are interesting.

Do not try to use Hammer results, that were accepted as wrong from Nature, and uses on the article without any results from Anatole. Dont play this game, dont be that stupid on Wikipedia. Put on your mind once for all. Anatole has the latest results about Cohanim, not Hammer. Find someone who can write something to denny Anatole results pointing the correct version, explainging what was wrong. Until them, you have to face the last article published by Nature, not the first one! --MCohenNY (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Titlecard screenshots

Thankyou. I fill out the boxes as required for screenshots. But the editor I've upset on his talk page stops all talk by archiving the page. I did no reverts. I am not a revert editor normally. He must have looked at my contributions page to see what mischief he could cause.REVUpminster (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• re the image resolution. This was before I found a free site resizr.com to reduce the size.REVUpminster (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• I see treasury tag is trying to delete another image due to source but he did not inform me just like last time when I thought it was just 2 but it was the lot. Well this is the source taken from the defunct QoS official site[1] so I can not see what the problem is. He is a menace, he is probably watching this page. He has 142 people watching his page and he accuses me of baseless insinuations and combative language but I have never edited anything of his. Only spoke on the talk page Talk:The_Waters_of_Mars but unless it agrees with him he archives the item. I am not happy.REVUpminster (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 13:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 13:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jheald. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Marquis

On November 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Marquis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama you stated "The policy positions attributed to Rama as 1-5 above by Elen of the Roads are indeed all demonstrably incorrect". It is unclear whether you mean "Rama's Interpretations" are wrong or that "Elen of Roads's attributions" are wrong? It is unclear whether your statement is claiming that Rama did indeed say those things, and HE was wrong, or that he did not say these things, and Elen is misinterpreting him. Could you please explain/expand/clarify your position so that it is more understandible what you meant? Thanks! --Jayron32 02:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew what you meant :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

IFDs

This was a mistake. Sorry. Rettetast had already nominated and had an image deleted from History of BBC television idents. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)