User talk:HelenOnline/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Family history article

Did you notice that the family history article has a proposal to merge it into genealogy? I am not sure I would link to the first? Hmmm --RebekahThorn (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the merger proposal is going anywhere (proposed in 2011), but that said I don't have strong feelings about linking to the article so I won't object if you unlink it. If the merger goes ahead, the wikilink will still redirect to the new main article. I wish people had as much interest in maintaining articles (and discussions/proposals) as they do in creating them. Helen (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

When I get done fixing the FTDNA article, I might push the merger through. Merging articles is one of my interests. :-) --RebekahThorn (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK I will add my support in that case. Helen (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of haplogroups of notable people

Please comment one way or another. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Helen (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

attempt to create ISOGG article

Hi, I notice your editing and I know you might be interested in this subject. A new user who has been doing some fairly controversial edits has made an ISOGG article in a fairly awkward way. It will probably be deleted if it is not improved. This could then make any eventual new creation of the article a bit more difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Andrew. I will see if I can improve it. I am a member of the ISOGG Facebook group but not a formal ISOGG member. Helen (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to be a member to write about it of course. :) I figured if you have been recently working on making the Family Tree DNA article you might have sources handy. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I know, it was just a disclaimer. :) Helen (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There is also discussion at User:Dougweller.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller, I will post a more detailed comment when I have had time to review what has already been posted, if I think I have anything worthwhile to add. Helen (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

In recognition of your work on the article about the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, I would like you to imagine enjoying the taste of my grandmother's masterpiece dessert. An imaginary glass of pomegranate juice would go perfectly with it! Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A drink on me

	Glass of wine
	May you find many more ancestors! Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of Wicca

Dear Helen, please correct me if I am wrong, but from your recent "thank you" for a comment over at the Modern Paganism talk page, I am given to the impression that you are yourself interested in the subject ? If so, I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look over at a page I created, Etymology of Wicca, which I am currently putting through a peer review; unfortunately, due to the highly specialist nature of the article, no one seems to be commenting just yet. Of course there is no obligation to do so, but if you do have any comments, that would be great, as I am hoping to push this article up to FAC soon! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I will take a look at it. It is interesting to me, although I am not Wiccan myself, and I have several reference books on the subject which may come in handy. Helen (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! If I can ever return the favour, feel free to let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi HelenOnline, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert any other type of edit - such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with - can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, use a manual edit summary instead of using the rollback tool. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 07:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - my students didn't quote the broadsheets accurately

Hi Helen, Please see my subject headline. I really think some broadsheet jounalists have brillianty encapsulated the social status of the Middleton family/ backround and should thus be accurately quoted. What do you think? Thanks again for your interest in this matter. Cheers, Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have added it properly but cannot guarantee it will stay as is. HelenOnline 09:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Helen Thanks so much for your work on the Family of Kate Middleton page. A student suggested a LINK on the "Blue-blooded word" - probably "gentry" but we are Victorians so, if you are English, you may know which word is best suited.

Also - if you talk to someone that "runs" the Kate Middleton page - do you think you could gat a similar line put in? We have had conferences here (Jounalist's) which highlight the MANY recent articles in the last few months which expose excellent research into her father's "smattering of blue-blooded ancestors".

Maybe, as these folk are all Luptons (apart from Viscount Bryce - a brother-in-law of Sir Charles Lupton)- this refernce could be juxtaposed alongside the Lupton reference on Kate's page. This would give a MUCH clearer view of Kate's background ie the Luptons, we know now, were not simply an "active business family"! Cheers and thanks so much Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding a wikilink inside a quotation is frowned on, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Linking. HelenOnline 10:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody "runs" Wikipedia pages but Wikipedians tend to watch pages they have worked on or are interested in. Someone has already challenged the addition of that quote to Kate's page, so I think it is probably best for now to leave it only in the family article where it is more appropriate. HelenOnline 10:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again - one more question please

Hi Helen You are so quick to respond. Thanks!

We noticed that there is a very interesting reference to the discovery of British Pathe film which has Kate's ancestors- great great grandfather and his brothers- in it alongsoide William's ancestors ie - royalty.

Would this information - which we gather has been in many newspaprs and in "on-line" articles - be of interest to wikipaedia readers who are intersted in Kate?

What do you think? Cheers Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It is already included under Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Background. HelenOnline 11:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

another relevant article to reference - what do you think?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/10135251/How-the-family-of-commoner-Kate-Middleton-has-been-rubbing-shoulders-with-royalty-for-a-century.html

Dear Helen, You might like to reference this above article too - shouldn't it be a reference for the bit that talks about the "Luptons hosting royalty". We are sure that that is where this information came from.

Thanks, I have added the reference as suggested (it was already cited a bit lower down in the article). HelenOnline 11:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

PS do you not think it a good idea to put the British Pathe information under the Kate middleton ancestry section on her OWN page? Cheers again Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid duplication on Wikipedia, but I have added a more obvious link to the family article in Kate's article. HelenOnline 11:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Family of Kate Middleton

Hi Helen, Thankyou for being so helpful. I am not a computer whiz. Hoping you can help -

I have read in a number of articles that Kate's great grandmother was from a "landed gentry" family. Infact page 3 of the UK Telegraph and also the Daily Mail had pictures of BEECHWOOD estate grade 2 listed etc etc . These shots of the estate - in the Lupton family until 1998 - had not been seen by the public. Much of the estate's farmland was sold off in the 1950's creating vast wealth for Francis' descendants. By 2000, the Georgian mansion itself was sold - more money for Francis' descendants.

The word "aristocratic" was used to describe Olive in the BBC tv show screened befor Kate and William married. It seems that "clever" people who read these papers and watch the BBC know the truth of the Middleton's families wealth - should wikipaedia readers know about it too OR should we let them just think of Kate as a commoner who just "somehow" had parents with ALOT of MONEY!! What do you think? This piece of history - see below- also seems to clarify the Luptons as being more socially important than most people think. The Luptons certainly had a HUGE property - the BBC were right as is the royal correspondant Gordon Raynor and they were socializing with royalty throughout the 1920's at least! Please, Please read these articles below-

http://www.leodis.net/display.aspx?resourceIdentifier=20041110_49352664

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/10135251/How-the-family-of-commoner-Kate-Middleton-has-been-rubbing-shoulders-with-royalty-for-a-century.html cheers Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits must be backed up with reliable sources. The source you cited makes no reference to gentry (which should not be capitalized unless it is a surname, in which case the gentry wikilink does not apply), only aristocracy some generations back. Please don't insinuate I have any ulterior motives. If you would like help making an edit in future, please post to the article's talk page. You can request edits using the templates provided by Wikipedia. HelenOnline 08:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Helen, I certainly wasn't insinuating that you have any ulterior motives. That has never been my imntention. I am sorry that I am unable to do the correct computer thing regarding the editing process. I just was wondering if this article page should be more in line with the Telegraph's research. Should we make areference to aristocarcy? What do you think? Should we at least add that the Luptons were big landowners too? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for Geddes

I'm thinking of making the sentence as such: "In 1913, after briefly studying landscape architecture at Harvard University, he and his wife moved to Asia Minor as a result of his decision to join the licorice business which his father had already established."

That way his studies won't go unnoticed and a date as to when he start and ended his studies at Harvard wouldn't necessarily be mentioned. What you think? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As already stated, I think you should leave it out. It doesn't add much value to the article and appears to contradict the other biographical sources cited. If you disagree with me, please ask for a third opinion. HelenOnline 18:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay that's fine I'll leave it out. Maybe I'll ask for a third opinion after a couple of weeks later. Thanks once again. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jamestown, Western Cape

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

With the Lupton family. You might also want to keep an eye on Lord Mayor of Leeds. (Aside: there was an early female one, with a female companion.) I am trying to assume good faith with anon Mike, but he is pushing my patience. Your help is appreciated. Isn't Frances Lupton a find? All those Leeds men, and she gets herself into the ODNB! BrainyBabe (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Also - might you consider commenting on my Did You Know nomination for Frances? The noms above and below her have been dealt with by other volunteers, but she is overlooked. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure. There is some content forking happening regarding the Luptons, which I am trying to address via section links to main articles, user warnings and now watching a whole lot of articles I am not really interested in for vandalism. I will review your DYK, just reviewed another two over the weekend after a self-nomination. HelenOnline 12:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Irritatingly, my software won't let me edit a section on your page, so I have to open the whole-page edit. I know what you mean about articles not of intrinsic interest! Content forking has its place; I agree that we want to provide summary info, not too much repetition, and direct readers to the appropriate article. There is (usually) a place for (almost) everything. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW I was talking about unintentional/POV forking not creating new articles. HelenOnline 21:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your fine-tooth comb through the article itself. Any chance we could get the Did You Know onto tomorrow's front page? BrainyBabe (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it's almost midnight here and I have had my hands full all day. In my experience, the DYK team won't be rushed either. HelenOnline 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BB, I have posted my review. I removed one of the refs while copy editing the article as I could not see what it was a source for. Please let me know if it should be there. HelenOnline 15:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And another fine-tooth comb today! You are really good with formatting refs. Any tips to make it easier for me next time? Also, what does "ce" mean in this context? There is a reason for the source you mention above, and I have a quibble with two small changes you made in hiding/revealing info from refs, but nothing pressing and certainly nothing that affects the DYK. (I'd deal with them now, but my internet access is limited at the moment. I'll get to them tomorrow.) I don't want to hurry the process unduly, but it would be good to see it up soon. Many many thanks for your attention and help! BrainyBabe (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I use the Cite templates in the editing box (select the last out of 4 options at the top of the editing box for the Cite drop-down menu to appear below it), for books and journals you can input the ISBN/DOI and click on the magnifying glass for it to populate the fields automatically (that part doesn't always work, and often needs some copy editing). The edit abbreviation ce is short for "copy edit". The DYK is out of my hands now. HelenOnline 19:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed all my edits on Frances Lupton, they are virtually all cosmetic copy editing for WP:MOS compliance and readability and adding citation templates. I corrected one word which seemed to be incorrect, i.e. where Edward Greenhow was referred to as "Elizabeth's first cousin" instead of "Frances (Lupton)'s first cousin". Yesterday I added back the ref to where I think it belongs (plus another) and today I moved one revealed quote to inside the ref and fixed a typo of mine. Please let me know if you have any queries about other edits. HelenOnline 09:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You may call it cosmetic, but it's very much appreciated. Thanks for the cite template tip, which I will try on my next editing adventure. (I figured out "ce" soon after I posted. I knew it couldn't be Common Era.) All the refs and now present and in the correct places, as far as I can see - the Kitson mayor, the two pages on the reforming doctor, the architect's description. I started her article more or less on a whim, just for the pleasure of having found her in the ODNB, and now this looks really good. I can't thank you enough for your meticulous help. If you need me to cast an eye on anything of yours, just ask. (With the caveat that I sometimes spend long periods away from WP.) BrainyBabe (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This article, also online here, might explain anon Mike's interest (who incidentally uses the same IP as anon Ted, a teacher from Australia, on my talk page). HelenOnline 16:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Currant bun

Alas I think we may have both the time and location of the Royal birth way out of line. Acccording to the Sun's "Nappy and Glorious" coverage, the birth of George was at 5 to 1, at Ladbrook's! Let's hope those Royal medics didn't lose him in the piles of used betting slips. I certainly wasn't induced to lay any wager, despite my prediction of a future Sun King. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops :) I also predicted a boy named Louis. HelenOnline 14:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't know you had also consulted Gypsy Rosie Lee! Who knows, I might have laid a farthing or two on Alexandra and Louise, if I had envisaged a baby Queen Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I consult my own tea-leaves. :) HelenOnline 15:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

An olive branch

I hope you know there was nothing personal in the debate at T:EoW. I'm often not very concise in text communication and can come off ranty as a result. I've actually, quietly noticed many of your contributions around Wikipedia.  —Sowlos  09:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC) has extended an olive branch of peace.

---

Thanks Sowlos, I appreciate the gesture. HelenOnline 18:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverted the archiveurl at Etymology of Wicca

I just checked the URL it appears to be live, so I reverted. However, if it turns out that the host website is just spotty, then the archive link could be restored but set to not override the real link. —Sowlos  15:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Richard III

I see there's a lot of backbiting at the articles relating to the recent discoveries. I'm making the assumption that you're not directly involved, but several of the editors obviously are. I wondered if I ought to put some temporary protection on Exhumation of Richard III of England to discourage edit warring. Deb (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not involved, unless you count the time Photohistorian tried to bribe me. I am just trying to keep the article reasonably clean. HelenOnline 11:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I was just looking for an opinion as to whether protection is justifiable. Deb (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not primarily IP addresses and new users editing the article, so I am not sure it would be much help although it wouldn't hurt. HelenOnline 15:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll see how it's looking later this evening. Deb (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

Your recent editing history at Nelson Mandela shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

The edits were sources and pertianied to his health. You called that vandalism and edit-warred. And you were damn-near 3RRr for it.Lihaas (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, will be more careful next time. HelenOnline 11:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Hulton (senior)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments: Stellenbosch treasure hunt

Hi Helen,

As I mentioned at the end of July I am putting together a Treasure hunt for Wiki Loves Monuments in Stellenbosch. I have booked a table for us all to meet at the Dorp Street Deli at 56 Dorpstreet for 10am on Saturday the 14th September. We can move out at 11am and be done by around 2pm. I would like to end the event at a nearby location with Internet access so that we can do an upload marathon the same day. I think the best location will be the Stellenbosch library on Plein Street.

A list of heritage sites in Stellenbosch can be found at List_of_heritage_sites_in_Stellenbosch. I would love to see us take as many pictures of these locations on the list as we can.

I would like to know if you could help me make this event happen by inviting people to join us in taking pictures of monuments from around the historical centre of Stellenboch and upload them onto the commons?

Please let me know if you are still interested in joining us. It would be great to have you join us!

Thanks

Douglas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discott (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 September 2013‎

Thanks Douglas, I plan to join you provided it's not raining. I have just finished cleaning up List of heritage sites in Stellenbosch. HelenOnline 15:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For Satanic Panic (South Africa) - a brilliant article :). Ironholds (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) HelenOnline 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Identity & alienation.

Hi, Helen Zille (it can't be you?)

Nonetheless, any from of discourse is paramount to progress society without any prejudice.

Clearly, you understand my view, and your view I apprehend to an extent. As the content I'm disputing is disputable and thus open for scrutiny from all relevant stakeholders.

I'm an Afrikaner. So to be clear, this stand your taking, reflects the stand of those who are in power. I implore that throughout this discourse that preconceived ideas, or old taboos are taken out of context. History is written by those who are in power. There's my version of the truth, then there's your version of the truth, and then there is the truth.

So then, my question what is the truth? Is the Afrikaner indigenous, or thus intruders? Are they European or African? Where do we draw the line? What defines your Africanism? How may races are there, one, or are we as a nation group representative of one race each? Are we not all indigenous? All of these question are relevant to this identity discourse. The ancestry of an new ethnicity, does they define them? Is those of European origin the only colonisers in South Africa? etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland Postma (talk • contribs) 08:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from edit warring and discuss this on the article's talk page. You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. HelenOnline 09:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Civil recognition of Jewish divorce

The article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have only added one wikilink to this article so am far from its author and it is not necessary to notify me. HelenOnline 06:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Edward IV and G.E. Cokayne

Hi Helen, RE - Ancestry of Catherne, Duchess of Cambridge. You might like to know that in Volume X, page 34, copyright 1945, S11568, The Complete Peerage of England..." by G.E. Cokayne, it is clear that there was issue from the Plantaganet- Lumley marriage

http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p1924.htm

You may also be interested in a published book (by Pen and Sword Books) It was published in Feb. 2013 - called "Tracing Your Aristocratic Ancestors". It is written by royal geneaologist Anthony Adolph (please see his web site). Chapter 6 is called "Heraldry" and it deals with the indisputable descent of the duchess of Cambridge from Edward IV.

Good Luck! Cheers Mike (Ted) Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.90.209 (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded on the article's talk page as there are other editors involved. HelenOnline 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Helen, You might like to refer to Cracroft's page - he, along with many geneaologists - is in absolutley no doubt that their was issue from the Lumley - Plantagenent marriage - (which includes descendants such as the Queen Mother).

http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/catherinemiddleton.htm

This is, as I am sure you know, a ludicrous situation. So many geneaologists have published this Edward IV ancestry of Kate Middleton's: C.Hall, A.Adolph, Cracroft and of course, Burke's Perrage and Cokayne. Here is the original (longer) version which he had on his website, (albeit briefly)-

"The Complete Peerage article on the Lords Lumley (Vol VIII p.274) does not say that there were no children from this marriage (patently not, as Richard, 4th Lord Lumley, was the son of Sir Thomas Lumley and Elizabeth Plantagenet) but that there was no evidence of the marriage. Given that the marriage was in the late 15th century this is not unusual. In the Addenda & Corrigenda to the Complete Peerage (p.457) Peter Hammond gives two sources for the evidence for this marriage. His last sentence reads: “The assertion that there were any issue is certainly not true”. Given Peter’s earlier comments, this is obviously a typo and it should read: “The assertion that there was no issue is certainly not true.”

Hope this helps. Use his specific facts (page numbers etc) in the article if necessary. You seem a very capable editor - moreso than me!! Michael E. Reed

Thanks, I cannot cite Cracroft's website due to the WP:BLPSPS policy. If you really want to help, please participate in the discussion on the article's talk page. WP:Consensus matters. HelenOnline 09:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Moved to Talk:List of haplogroups of notable people § November 2013

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think there was some confusion as to the edits I made on list of haplogroups of notable people, particularly the King Tut section. I couldn't fit it all in the edit summary so I've brought the discussion here. Your first edit was in regards to this sentence "After pressure to publish Tutankhamun's full DNA report to confirm his Y-DNA results, the researchers refused to respond." It is known that they purposely left out his Y-DNA results in the final report despite testing his Y-DNA (His Y-DNA results were publicly broadcasted when they were trying to determine if Akhenaten was his father). After the leak the researchers responded by calling it "unscientific" but did not deny the results were accurate (Since it was publicly broadcasted so they couldn't deny it) and also refused to further comment when they were asked to officially report his Y-DNA results.

You made a rv in your second edit, I removed that part because I didn't feel it was relevant to the article.

In your third edit you reverted this additional information I added "In December 2012 according to a genetic study conducted by the same researchers who decoded King Tutankhamun's DNA, found that." I thought this part was relevant because it showed that these particular researchers were willing to publish the Y-DNA results of the mummies, but possibly tried to censor King Tuts DNA results due to him having European ancestry.

In the fourth edit you removed the origin of R1b1a2 (R-M269) and E1b1a for an unknown reason. Let me know how we can settle this, thanks Anarchistdy (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

All my edits are clearly explained in my edit summaries (I broke it down carefully so there could be no confusion). Including the origins of the haplogroups amounts to WP:CONTENTFORKING which is not constructive. If you read the deletion nomination discussions listed on the article's talk page, you may have a better idea where I am coming from. If the article deteriorates further, deletion is a distinct possibility. HelenOnline 09:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"All my edits are clearly explained in my edit summaries (I broke it down carefully so there could be no confusion)" You attempted to explain them but I don't think they were justified.

I disagree that it falls into the contentforking category because it does conform to the Manual of Style for list and the first paragraph states. "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

I read the deletion discussion and the overwhelming opinion was to keep the article, with suggestings to clean it up and remove some of the less notable people. My edit to the King Tut section was to make it more neutral because the entire section was trying to discredit those particular results just because the original researchers didn't publish the YDNA in the final report. As I said before his DNA testing was publicly broadcasted, and the camera showed a close up of the results which were R1b1a2 (R-M269) to 99.9% certainty (For comparison most of the results on this list claiming a certain YDNA are probably only around 80% certainty). The the only way the researchers could deny these results was if contamination occurred, which it clearly didn't since the same sample proved that Akhenaten was his father. Anarchistdy (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Reposting quote here for clarity: "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

This refers to intentional forking, e.g. in the Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) article editors may decide to split out Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)#R1b1a2_.28R-M269.29 if the main article becomes too long and this section warrants an article of its own. List of haplogroups of notable people is definitely not the place to discuss the origins of a haplogroup (possibly duplicating or contradicting what is posted in the main article where it is already covered in more detail). If someone wants to know more they can click on the R1b1a2 wikilink in the section. HelenOnline 05:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion across to the article talk page so other editors can contribute to the discussion. HelenOnline 05:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Untitled

Dear Helen, Well done on your work on the Edward IV ancestry "issue" of Kate Middleton. I wonder if the information will ever be placed back in her own article? What do you think?

There were at least 2 films found in July 2013, by British Pathe which featured Kate's ancestors. The first was from 1915 and her great great grandfather Francis Martineau Lupton appears in it. Francis is part of the Mayoral entourage following his brother, Sir Charles, who is inspecting the "Leeds Pals Battalian" at a camp near Colsterdale, in the Yorkshire Dales. His brothers Arthur and Hugh are also in the entourage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/09/kate-middleton-ancestors-caught-on-film_n_3567707.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/footage-found-of-duchess-of-cambridges-ancestors--meeting-royalty-8698340.html

http://britishpathe.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/the-duchess-of-cambridges-ancestors-discovered-on-film/

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-07-09/archive-footage-shows-kates-great-great-great-relatives/

The second Pathe film is from 1927 and shows Kate's great great grandfather's brother Hugh, Lord Mayor of Leeds, and his wife Isabella, the Lady Mayoress, greeting Princess Mary in Hunslet, Leeds. Princess Mary is the current Queen's aunt.

These films were shown in the UK on the BBC Look North TV programme on the day,6.30pm, of Prince George's birth!

I do hope this helps clear things up and well done again. Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I prefer it on one page only. There is no need for the duplication, which increases article maintenance and the possibility of point of view forking.

Thanks, I figured there were two different films from different dates but they seem to have been mixed up in the text I edited?. The brotherly entourage related to the 1915 film not the 1927 film mentioned in the previous sentence. The way it was written made it sound as if the brotherly entourage related to the 1927 royal visit, which I understand is not the case. Please let me know if I am mistaken about this. HelenOnline 09:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Helen,

Good to hear from you and thanks.

It is my understanding that the 4 films were of interest to the UK media because they all relate to each other - over a period of 50 years. They all show that the four Lupton men (as well as Lady Mayoress Isabella Lupton) and also Kate's grandfather, all knew Royalty well - obviously not just in "Lord Mayoral" official capacities.

Pathe Film 1 - Kate's great great grandfather Francis is seen with his brother Sir Charles and his two other brothers, in the 1915 film. Sir Charles was Deputy Lieutenant of the West Riding of York to Princess Mary's father-in-law, Earl Harewood, who was his Lord Lieutenant. Princess Mary's (future) husband, Lord Harewood, is also apparently in the entourage but I have searched the records from Pathe and I cannot see where this idea originated from - but I agree that it is most probable. His wikipaedia entry certainly lists him as a soldier.

Pathe Film 2 - Kate's great great great uncle Hugh and his wife Isabella, are greeting and then waving "good bye" to Princess Mary, the Princess Royal in Hunslet, Leeds, in the 1927 Pathe film. This also interested the BBC as Princess Mary is Prince William's great great aunt. A magazine called "Majesty" did an article on all of this fairly new information recently. Footage and stills were also found of Sir Charles' brother-in-law, Viscount Bryce (British Ambassador to the USA) in the Library of Congress. A photo of Viscount Bryce, alongside Prince Arthur, was also in "Majesty" - a UK publication which sells world wide. I think it was also mentioned in a Daily Telegraph article too.

Pathe Film 3 - Kate's great great great aunt is seen at a huge Leeds Rememberance event - with the Great Mace of Leeds being carried before her, as Lady Mayoress, this being a "sign of Royal Authority". http://www.britishpathe.com/video/armistice-day-thousands-attend-deeply-impressive-3

Pathe Film 4 - The UK public would have been interested to see the Pathe film which shows Co-pilot Peter Middleton together with the Duke of Edinburgh in the 1962 "Tour of South America". Peter Middleton is the grandfather of Kate Middleton. The Duke is Prince William's grandfather. http://www.britishpathe.com/video/selected-originals-dukes-successful-tour-3/query/shanty

Fascinating on television to watch!

I do hope this helps. All the Best M.E.Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You're an inspiration...

I am new to Wikipedia as a writer. I stumbled onto your User Page, and is busy using it (along with a few others) to create my own. Thank you for being an inspiration to me in this regard.

How long did you take to get your User Page to where it is now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a (talk • contribs) 11:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I make a link so people can message me as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a (talk • contribs) 11:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I am happy to help. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes. HelenOnline 11:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Erzurum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yozer1 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

One revert of an unsourced edit does not constitute edit warring. HelenOnline 16:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But that is exactly what you did, warned me of edit-warring with the first revert, before I had a chance to add the reference. Yozer1 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have asked you to read WP:BRD. I will break it down for you anyway:

• B, your initial bold edit
• R, Yerevanci reverted your unsourced edit
• [there is no D here as you skipped this step]
• R, you reverted Yerevanci and are now edit warring
• I gave you a warning to stop edit warring
• When you ignored my warning and continued edit warring, I attempted to D, discuss it on the talk page.

The talk page discussion could have been opened sooner (not that you were interested in discussing it given your deletion of the talk page discussion four times in violation of WP:TPOC). Ideally it should have been opened by you in line with WP:BRD. I have in no way prevented you from adding a source or discussing it further on the talk page. A lot of discussion has already gone into that section of the article, so it would be wise to discuss any changes on the talk page first anyway. HelenOnline 08:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I am always available for discussion. However, User:Yerevanci's insistence to revert my contribution is what set me off to continue reverting. I would love to convince you of the Arabic root for the city name with sources, but do not have that much time. You may do your own research from Arabic and Turkish sources if you wish. Thank you.Yozer1 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

• 19 modifications to sources and careers, when prompted for further discussion by Frelau, and in one hour [1]
• 73 revisions to the page since the 23rd of November between you and Frelau [2]

I suggest you both re-read WP:BRD and WP:BLP. --Leptiminus (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Your sources - Postmedia (Ottawa Citizen) are unfortunately not reliable. If you want to go that route, you will have to use the Departmental Website and look at expenses for Ian Wilson, Ingrid Parent and do comparison. The reports you are using are not built on any reliable sources- they do not pretend to either. These newspaper articles have been vindictive and in support of an advocacy movement recognized by Myron Grover lately on his blogpost- please check. They do not reflect the reality. The only reliable source for what you try to advance is the Privy Council Office and it has to do with personal information - retirement. No letter, no post allow you to verify if he resigned. The further you could go with this is that he left the Public service. And interestingly enough he left before Postmedia reported on expenses that, by the way, if you do not know the canadian system, are posted every quarter on the website of the institutions. This shows the vindictive and harassment Caron was a victim of by media and professional communities. It doesn't tell the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frelau (talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. I am not trying to advance anything other than what is published in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. Please note that editing a Wikipedia article is strongly discouraged if you have a conflict of interest. If you have any concerns, you can post them on the talk page with reliable sources to back them up. HelenOnline 09:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I read your modifications to the LAC page as well as those made to Caron's bio. it sounds more like advocacy than being serious about reporting a balanced view. It sounds like you have a conflict of interest working on behalf of someone here. you seem to be referring in the text to what is supporting some kind of a "thesis". I will continue with your previous "warning" on truth and verifiability: The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. And: Please note that editing a Wikipedia article is strongly discouraged if you have a conflict of interest. So, please bring a balance view to the LAC's page and get Caron's bio as a bio as per define in Wikipedia guidelines.--Frelau (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC) in other words, the bios need to be bios and controversies need to be where they belong: with the institution. However, several comments where made vis a vis the fact that it was complaisant to Wilson and Caron and not reflecting the opposition from inside. True. you need a balanced view: LAC - as an institution- corporations of archivists and librarians, unions, and obviously the direction of this government.--Frelau (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a request for help at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. HelenOnline 07:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

Moved to Talk:Nelson Mandela

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Helen,

Thank you for the work you've done on the Nelson Mandela page (the late, great, and honorable Nelson Mandela). I see that editing restrictions are currently in place so I'm writing you as the last contributor. As a modest suggestion, I wonder if you might agree that a link to the "List of South African newspapers" page could be appropriate. Even better, links to their respective Letters to the Editor. In that way, I believe the outpouring of support that can be expected might in some small way be enhanced. If you agree with me. I am very willing to track down those links for your review.

Sincerely,

Jim VanOpdorp — Preceding unsigned comment added by JZVan (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI

Hello, I just noticed this. COIN can be extremely slow, as there aren't many editors patrolling it these days. Two thoughts. First, the accused COI editor hasn't editing since Nov 25, so perhaps you're in the clear for the time being. Second, if you want to get this guy you should start an WP:SPI. It seems clear to me he used Lepti... as a sock in order to attack you; if the SPI comes up positive then both accounts will probably be blocked indefinitely. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Dr. Fleischman. I opened the case as I didn't want to edit war. They haven't edited since then because I haven't reverted their edits. Based on both their edits, I think it is more likely that Leptiminus is a sock of a different unrelated editor trying to discredit me. HelenOnline 09:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm, you're right, they're definitely not the same person. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Q1a1- F125 has been confused with R1b1 in the TUrkmen population (verified) and is likely to be very rare in the rest of central asia (including ughurs) and siberia please because of P25 mutation

Turkmens have the worlds highest frequency of Q1a1-F1215 (Q1a2 a different clade is found in Americans and Siberians) [3] [4]. Turkmenistan may be the only nation outside of the continental Americas with more then 10% Q, and one of only a few remaining in the world. Q1a1 is at least 17 kya as it is found in an upper Paleolithic Afontova remain in siberia [5]. Old studies mislabeled Q1a1-m25 with R1b1. This is due to the fact that both Q1a1b, the only clade of Q in Turkmens is defined by P25 which also is a defining mutation of R1b1 [6] [7] . It is likely that most of what was labeled R1b in central asia- and Siberia is really Q1a1b, including Uyghurs, and the Bashkirs, R1b has been verified as being common in some of the Bashkirs but it likely that they are the eastern-most population with a high frequency of the haplogroup .. 209.236.86.201 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help you. Please discuss on the relevant article talk page. HelenOnline 06:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting that this IP seems to be pushing stuff from yfull.com]. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

To: HelenOnline

Sorry! I honestly did not know that sa gov text was not copyrighted. Apologies for my slip-up.

Thank you

Nelson Mandela was not Batman (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. We don't have freedom of panorama for photographs unfortunately but we do have that:

"No copyright shall subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts, or in speeches of a political nature or in speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings, or in news of the day that are mere items of press information." (source). HelenOnline 07:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. It is good to be educated by those more knowledgable than I am. :) Thank you Nelson Mandela was not Batman (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit

Moved to Talk:List of dignitaries at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[8]

The article is entitled List of dignitaries at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela, not List of pictures of Barack Obama at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela. My reversion is valid. NorthernThunder (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you found (or looked for) any other relevant free images? Instead of removing all the images, please try to find some others and swap them out. I will look again when I have the time but I could use some help. HelenOnline 07:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK for National Forensic DNA Database of South Africa

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Moved to Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please explain to me why it is incorrect to list Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge as "Princess William" and why it is acceptable to list Sophie, Countess of Wessex as "The Princess Edward" or Katherine, Duchess of Kent as "Princess Edward" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytnb (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't comment on the specifics of the other cases (as I have not been involved in those articles much if at all). It all depends on what the powers that be decide to use, and which is then included in reliable sources. Being a British princess by marriage or being eligible to be called "Princess William" does not mean that is what will be used in practice. Official primary sources and reliable secondary sources do not refer to Catherine as "Princess William". HelenOnline 13:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.