User talk:Aaronjhill

March 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Haplogroup I1a (Y-DNA) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Haplogroup I1a (Y-DNA) constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Haplogroup I1a (Y-DNA). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Steve Crossin (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Haplogroup I1a (Y-DNA). Steve Crossin (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to offer you my apologies for the warnings I gave you and the subsequent block that you received. I know that it doesn't really make up for my error, but I still thought I should apologise to you. Steve Crossin (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * This block appears to have been levied in error based on the now-retracted vandalism reports above. The block's duration was 15 minutes, and expired almost an hour ago.  Please accept my apology for the inconvenience.  --Kralizec! (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Vandalism
Aaronjhill, I would like to express my apologies for the revert I performed on that page. I immediately thought it was vandalism as I was using Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool which scans recent changes and Line 380 came up -> :Forward 5′→ 3′: gcaacaatgagggtttttttg. I see vandalism like this all the time and my automatic reaction was to revert it. My policy is to revert once and if it comes up again, look into the history. I didn't see the page come up again however. If I did see the page, I would of seen your constructive edits and reverted my revert immediately. Olly150 13:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Communication
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to Haplogroup I1a (Y-DNA). With regards to the above, when you find yourself in conflict with another editor, please try communicating directly. Sometimes editing on Wikipedia can be frustrating, particularly when others misconstrue our actions, but policy requires that we respond civilly. Personal attacks, like this, are forbidden and can themselves be grounds for blocking. Please try to assume good faith when you are approached by another editor and discuss the matter with him or her on the talk page. Also, misunderstandings can sometimes be avoided from the start by the use of descriptive edit summaries. (You'll see the edit summary box just below the edit window. It is helpful to briefly characterize your edits there for the benefit of other contributors.) The use of talk pages and edit summaries can prevent an unfortunate escalation of misunderstandings and provide a more harmonious editing environment. Vandalism is a serious problem on Wikipedia, and sometimes good faith contributions are mischaracterized that way. I understand that having your efforts so labeled must be very irritating. But adding insults to user spaces is disruptive; it is not a productive or appropriate method of dispute resolution. If you have any questions about these policies or guidelines, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Alternatively, you can visit Wikipedia's help desk, which is typically manned by volunteers around the clock. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no way to communicate with him because I have not input my email address, which I guess I should do. However, I do believe Wiki's policies are rather silly. Not sure who gives the authority to edit items someone knows nothing about. You don't sound very diplomatic yourself. I was trying to edit the page and at the same time I have someone following up right behind me undoing everything. I have been working on this page for a long time, trying to provide the science and history behind the subject. I do appreciate the apologies, but editors MUST be more careful and considerate. -- Aaron


 * If you click on the "history" tab for any page, it will pull up a list of who edits to the page have been made by, with links to their "talk" pages. That's the best way to leave anyone a message, or start a discussion with them.


 * There's also a timestamp and a talk page link created whenever you sign a comment with four tildes ( ~ ), which is strongly encouraged. So generally, if anyone's left you a comment, you can get right back to them.  Jheald (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried this and the email link at his personal page, but neither worked. I believe you must have an email address linked to your account before contacting people. I think I skipped this step when registering. Obviously I got a little hot and should not have reacted as I did. I apologize. -- Aaron


 * The problem I think may have been that has slightly confusing personalisation of his talk page.  Clicking the talk icon there did nothing, because you had already reached the talk page.   You should be able to edit a talk page just like any other page on WP, whether or not you've registered an email address.  If you'd clicked the "edit this page" tab at the top of Steve Crossin's talk page, I think it would have worked.  But I can see exactly why you missed it. Jheald (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this information is buried in articles and most people won't take the time to find and read the material. Wiki editors seem to be an intrusive bunch in my opinion. Please let the people who are active in I1a research work on this without unnecessary interference. -- Aaron

Focus at Haplogroup I1a (Y-DNA)
You're making a huge improvement to this article. Very impressive.

But I'm worried that in a couple of sections, the focus may be straying a bit.

Style in Wikipedia articles tends to be quite terse and tightly focussed on the primary subject of the article. Where possible, background information if it is not so directly associated tends to be handed off to other articles. So while material eg on Tolkein or the kings of early France or the bloodthirsty image of the Vikings is interesting, it has to be quite pared back, and the reader needs to be convinced that it is directly informative to understanding Haplogroup I1a.

Otherwise some (probably clueless) editor is likely to wander along, say "I don't see the relevance of this", and clumsily chop out a big swathe - including material which really needs to be there.

So I think it might be to your advantage to pare these sections back a bit. As far as possible, leave background information or interesting but slightly off-topic material to other articles (edit it into those articles yourself, if necessary), unless there's a clear point you need to make the reader grasp to properly understand I1a, and what it may have taught us. In which case, make sure the reader understands why they need to know it!

Sorry if this is cold water, but again real appreciation for all the work you're putting in. -- Jheald (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly areas that need to be cleaned up. I will work on it. -- Aaron


 * I have to agree with Jheald, though I greatly appreciate the progress!


 * So I must say thanks a lot for the new edits Aaron.


 * You're putting a lot of work in. However I must agree to be careful to tie everything neatly into the context of I1a as a genetic haplogroup. You may be getting resistance and reverts due to the fact that some of the information is too many steps removed from I1a in particular, and may be better redirected to articles on their respective topics.


 * Segments such as;


 * Oxford archaeologist David Miles has argued that 80 percent of the genetic makeup of native Britons probably comes from "just a few thousand" nomadic tribesmen who arrived 12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age.


 * Might just be saved as useful by adding something such as; A portion of whom were I1a to the end of the paragraph.


 * The whole "vikings" section does not mention the haplogroup at all:


 * In England the Viking Age began dramatically on June 8, 793 when Norsemen destroyed the abbey at Lindisfarne, plundering and murdering indiscriminately. Monks were killed in the abbey, thrown into the sea to drown or carried away as captives. An incident four years earlier where three Viking ships were beached in Portland Bay, perhaps on a trading expedition, created some tension, but Lindisfarne was different. The devastation of Northumbria's Holy Island shocked many including the royal Courts of Europe. More than any other single event, the attack on Lindisfarne cast a shadow on the perception of the Vikings for the next twelve centuries.


 * And has far too specific of information, as the date of the beginning of the viking age, which is as I said earlier, too many times removed from the context of the I1a article specifically, and could better link out to a small mention of I1a and vikings elsewhere within wikipedia.


 * But please, keep up the good work! There's lots of motivation needed that many of us don't have all the time and a lot of new information coming out in this area that needs to be accounted for! Nagelfar (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. you can place four tilde's ~ to sign your name, and add a colon : to indent your message under someone elses in talk pages. Nagelfar (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this information is buried in articles and most people won't take the time to find and read the material. Wiki editors seem to be an intrusive bunch in my opinion. Please let the people who are active in I1a research work on this without unnecessary interference. -- Aaron


 * I think "intrusion" is part of the point of wikipedia really. ;-) If someone has a problem with the accuracy of wikipedia, they have no one to blame but themselves I say, but at the same time I do think you'll run into trouble if you go to assume that information buried in other articles is pertinent to another one without solid sourcing backing it up. It's quite like the same trouble one finds when ISOGG or a testing company doesn't keep their nomenclature up to date, but it is a necessary evil for the sake of being thorough.


 * Unless you can source information & why it is directly informational, in an encyclopedic and verifiable sense, to the article at hand, it probably shouldn't go in the article and it is likely someone will try to remove it in the future. For example, the part on the Franks, such as where it is written; Genetic remnants remain in northern France, indicating a small influx of I1a men, likely during Viking raids and subsequent settlement. Subtle increases in I1a haplotypes indicate a modest contribution, perhaps from a combination of the Frankish migration during the last days of the Roman Empire and later Viking incursions. Saying something "indicates...influx of I1a" or "likely during Viking raids" and the rest, without it being from someone else's mouth and published as such, can be construed as "original research". Not saying it is wrong or is a wrong assumption, not even saying it isn't a highly informed statement, it just doesn't meet the criteria for addition in what Wikipedia aims for without it being properly sourced.


 * The point of wikipedia is to be a "wiki-" encyclopedia, and there are rules set to that, trying to get information across from what would be indirectly related from other articles can be seen to violate the "NPOV" (neutral point of view) policy. Nagelfar (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rootsi paper is all about this. I1a in northern France. I have spent considerable time searching for other sources without success, but this is a counter to the FTDNA theory. Please read the damn article. FTDNA (and others) thinks that I1a arose in northern France. This is extremely controversial and the opponents think that I1a was introduced by Norsemen raiders.

I guess I should just go elsewhere and write what I want. Have to find webspace somewhere. God forbid "original" research! Wiki really needs to revisit its policies.

-- Aaron


 * Perhaps you are looking for Wikibooks or Wikiversity ?  These sister projects of Wikipedia have different aims and significantly different policies on original research.  Worth a look? &mdash; the Sidhekin (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as every part in the article points to the source, and is structured to be read so that the source is alluded to, you should be fine. I'm not trying to be critical but rather letting you know how others just may be, so it is of no surprise when it comes. If it isn't there in the readers face, some (read: *many*) Wikipedia users have this strange fetish for reading Wikipedia just to edit out unsourced statements, or ones that may be sourced elsewhere in the article but don't have that bullet point leading to the sourcing. It's crazy, but say, if Ken Nordtvedt came on and edited his article with true facts about himself and his life, that weren't published elsewhere, they'd be edited out as original research. Even if it was proved it was him adding such things, unpublished facts wouldn't meet the notibility requirements. It all kind of ties together (the no OR, NPOV, notability). I love the work on the I1a article however, Aaron, keep it up and hope the editing goes smoothly; if people can seem bossy here, don't give up. A lot of people check Wikipedia and it would be the ideal place to have the up-to-date information when it comes out, I would say much better for a broad audience than hosting ones own site somewhere else. Nagelfar (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
 * Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
 * The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\btypepad\.com\b'.
 * Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites.	 For more information about me, see my FAQ page.	 Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:I1a_europe.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:I1a_europe.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? I created this image. -- Aaron

Please forgive all the complications with contributing here. Several of these complications have been added as solutions (though imperfect) to various problems encountered in the pastm that you wouldn't be aware of.

For instance, the one referenced above about images. In the past (the too recent past) people were uploading all sorts of things copied from all over, introducing copyright concerns. So they've added the requirement that the uploader somehow state the provenance of an image. If you created the image, then there is a way to say that, and that you are adding it under an open license. A hassle to be sure, but unfortunately needed. They've even got 'bots' that automatically check copyright status omissions! Oh, cool, you've added some information. Hopefully that'll be enough?

Speaking of bots, you hit another one, that XlinkBot warning above. This is another 'bot' that checks for additions of links to problem sites. You see, some sites were linked to for abusive purposes so many many times, that the WP people finally just had to blacklist some domain names. Perhaps "typepad.com" is one of those. Again, there's a reason for these arbitrary-appearing things, even when you yourself have done nothing wrong, and certainly didn't mean anything bad. Another hassle because of all the previous abuse of WP by other people. A solution that is painfully less than ideal.

And the emphasis on sources... another painful result. The various editors who simply wanted to slander some other soul, or country, or company, or religion, or... (sigh). So they ended up super-emphasizing that text insertions should be supportable, pretty much solely by reference to reputable external sources (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.). Sometimes even to where "common sense" statements can be criticized by someone, because that someone doesn't believe in that particular common sense. This is a big burden for a lot of people, but rather important to the continuing encyclopedic project.

Anyway, after the first mistaken reception you got here, I hope that the following "wow, we appreciate the work" has not been dampened too much by the wiki-overhead requirements and 'etiquette' references (add " ~ " and the like). It is confusing and slows one down. But you can ask for help, and we really do appreciate expert additions!! Shenme (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Things are going fine now. Just trying to learn the Wiki methods. -- Aaron

I1a modal haplotypes.
I was wondering if you would help me add all of Nordtvedt's used "modal haplotypes" to the list on the I1a page. So far there's just AS, Norse, Bothnia & uN. I was previously concerned about the page getting too bulky if I were to do such a thing, then I thought we could put code to make it collapsible such as:

Maybe we could do the same kind of collapsible table for the technical mutational information. Alternately we could just display the main/important ones, and put the others into such a show/hide scheme, or maybe the downstream ones, etc. Nagelfar (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it has a problem. People can scroll and read and skip if need be. By the way, I have only included a few of the important SNPs and only one STR. -- Aaron


 * I don't think it is currently a problem either, but I'm speaking of adding the additional haplotypes, in which case the section would get a bit long, especially if every numbered Anglo-Saxon variant was included. Nagelfar (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could try it and see how it works. I don't have the time right now to do it. -- Aaron

Battle of Farmington
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Battle of Farmington, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/battles-campaigns/1863/631007.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Oscar Malmborg
A tag has been placed on Oscar Malmborg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? He was critical to training Civil War troops. As I find the time, I will write more about him. -- Aaron

I1
Hi Aaron, I've been looking at the article about Y haplogroup I1 and I have some concerns. You are clearly editing in good faith and know a great deal about this subject, but it contains a great deal of what we call original research, specifically it suffers from the problem that it cites unreliable sources such as emails, blogs etc. Here on Wikipedia we only include information that is verified from published sources that are considered reliable. That means that we only cite material that has been published in an academic journal, or in a book written by a recognised researcher or expert in the field. The other problem with your contributions is that many of them constitute a synthesis, taking ideas from work and applying your own interpretation is not what we should be doing. I know there is a lot to understand about how we do things here on Wikipedia, it took me some time to understand our core policies, but when you do it makes editing here much easier. Simply stated you can't use emails, blogs or the ideas of people posting at FTDNA or Ysearch to cite information. Avoid primary sources such as actual data and stick to reputable secondary and tertiary sources. For example you claimed in the article:"Genetic remnants remain in northern France, indicating a small influx of I1 men, likely during Viking raids and subsequent settlement." But this claim is clearly original research, your reference is simply to a list of ySearch users who are members of haplogroup I1 who live in western Europe, this does not support the claim for "Viking" raids or subsequent settlement. What you need to do is verify the claim of Viking raids by citing a reliable source that makes this claim, simply showing that I1 exists in France does not verify the claim of "Viking" raids. The article is littered with this sort of original research and synthesis. Please don't think I'm leaving this message as a criticism, I know there is a lot to understand when one starts Wikipedia, and I know I made a great many mistakes when I started editing here. I suggest that you read our core policies neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Then take a look at reliable sources and In science try to avoid citing the popular press. There are several useful policies and guidelines such as these that it's informative to read. Reading our core policies does not take much time, about ten minutes per policy and I strongly recommend it. I've tagged the I1 article as being OR (original research) and SYN (synthesis). I'm going to go through it when I get time and remove much of the speculation that is currently contained there. I'd also like to know the origin of the map that you have at the top of the page, where do these data come from? Are they published? Who published them, the map also needs to be cited or else it too is original research. If you can't cite the map then Im affraid I'll have to remove that as well, which would be a shame because it's a nice map. All the best. Alun (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I added this reference, but it is the current theory at FTDNA and among certain researchers including Luca at Stanford as well as Rootsi. Some may have disowned it by now which is wise. There are plenty of books and papers on the market discussing DNA and Vikings. I totally disagree with your assessment of the article. -- Aaron
 * OK, sorry. I thought you had because you've been editing the article a great deal. When I get time I'm going to spend some on this article trying to remove a lot of the more obvious OR. Cheers, Alun (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is an issue as it is merely a book cover. I really could care less if it is deleted. Just seems so unnecessary. In my opinion, a lot of the Wiki police patrols are rather overzealous at times. -- Aaron

RMS Aurania
Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I've renamed the article (twice in fact !) - it seems that the article you created was the second such Cunard ship to carry that name, so I've tweaked it a little. If you want to add details about the first and third ships, feel free ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. -- Aaron

Speedy deletion of Roger Friedman
A tag has been placed on Roger Friedman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. — Realist  2  05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me since he is referenced on Wiki pages 642 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=roger+friedman

-- Aaron

Someone removed your I1 map.
Hi Aaron,

You should cite the sources for the I1 map you made (I'm presuming it's a combination of other I1 maps that are sourced, simply state that in the image page that is how you made it, by referencing the images, saying you did so by scratch as to not infringe copywrite) because someone moved it saying it was "original research" with "unverifiable sourcing" from the I1 haplogroup page. I'd like to see the image re-added myself. Nagelfar (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you need to state the source data from which you made the maps from. The maps are very good and useful, but are being removed in some places since it's said that there is no proper source reference. Also I personally would like to know the source, since I'm interested in this. Hollinger (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who removed the map and I will continue to do so unless you source it to WP:RS. The map obviously has flaws, e.g. Northwestern Poland was completely cleansed of the indigenous population in 1945 and resettled with people primarily from Central Poland, so it seems a bit odd how the Northwestern Poles suddenly express I and the Central Poles don't. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, to assume that modern Poles do not belong to I1 is just plain wrong. There are several people of Polish descent in our I1 porject at FTDNA. Perhaps you should find something better to do than bother people on Wiki. -- Aaron

What sources and studies show this map has "obvious flaws"? You want me to cite sources. Well, how about you? -- Aaron

Perhaps you should read up on these pages. If harassment continues, I will request certain users be blocked from editing this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war

-- Aaron


 * Where was I ever in conflict with the policies you cited? Maybe you should WP:AGF on my part as a start and tone it down a bit, thank you. The burden of evidence that your map is based on wp:reliable sources that can be wp:verified is solely on you. So far, you have provided nothing. WP:V and WP:RS are core policies of wikipedia, everything introduced here must be in accordance with these policies. If you have "many Poles" in your project, you can certainly source that the northern, and particularily northwestern Poles differ from Central Poles in respect to I, as your map indicates. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd you are wrong again. I have cited two papers for the map. -- Aaron

Obviously you lack common sense, but I think you should read this as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point

-- Aaron

By the way, you avoided the major question I had. What are your sources for your claims about Poland? -- Aaron


 * "I have cited two papers for the map. " Ok, you finally did, minutes before my last posting. As you have not done so before, your rants are inappropriate to say the least. If you continue to talk to your fellow editors like that, you won't be here for long.


 * Skäpperöd, to assume that modern Poles do not belong to I1 is just plain wrong. There are several people of Polish descent in our I1 porject at FTDNA." Never did I dispute that I is distributed in Poland. What I dispute is the gradient within Poland, specifically that there is almost none in Central Poland and a very high distribution in the Northwest. How does that come about since the Northwest was only recently settled primarily from Central Poland after the former population was completely removed? You might want to read Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II, Recovered Territories, and Former eastern territories of Germany for a start. I am sure the Balanovsky map is not the final version of I-distribution within Poland, but I accept for now you based your map on a RS. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk about original research! To assume that the expulsions eliminated I1 from now Polish territory is not based on the evidence. Several Polish families are indeed I1. In fact, there is still a very small German minority in Poland today. --AJH (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a few things you should read: German minority in Poland and FTDNA I1 Project Results (plenty of references to Poland and Slavic names such as Kulko, Kuzdzal, Pomykalski, Pietruszewski, Wnuk, Wolinski, Skarbek de Kozietuly, Kiepura, Bielinski, Klem, Kornicz-Hospod, Pecura, Redzisz, Welna, Zalewski) --AJH (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, please don't contact me anymore. -- Aaron


 * You are not in a position to tell me that. I requested someone to help you better understand how wikipedia works at Wikiquette alerts.


 * Nevertheless, you need to delete your old and unsourced map, that is File:I1a europe.jpg. This map is identical with File:I1 europe.jpg you just uploaded and sourced. Next time you want to add information to the image description, you can edit image files just as you can edit articles and talk pages. Just make the changes and save, no need to upload a new identical map with a different image description. If you want to make changes to the image itself, re-upload the image to the same filename destination it had before. If you want to change the title, you do not need to create a new file either, but simply move it to the new filename. Now you chose to upload an identical map again with a new title and sources, you have to delete the old file to avoid further confusion. That you cannot do yourself, but need an admin to do so.


 * You request that at the WP:IfD board. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, I would appreciate if you would stop. --AJH (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the I1a image had been deleted. Since you are the one who had a problem with it, perhaps you should request its removal and stop telling me what to do. --AJH (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. ''Please sign all posts in talk and discussion pages with 4 tildes - this will automatically date the post, and link to your userpage. Thanks!'' ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 11:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering where that button was. The Wiki platform takes some getting used to. --AJH (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I do hope that you see that I am trying to keep you here as an editor, and appreciate the passion for editing that you have shown so far.  I am, as noted, a neutral party, and have no desire to see "retirements". ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I echo User:Bwilkins' concern that you should not retire over the matters above, which seems quite minor. Wikipedia is a complex and confusing place in which differing views must be reconciled and this process naturally takes some getting used to.  If it seems too intense then just take a break or switch to a different topic.  I have been here for some 3 years and am still climbing the learning curve. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please, please, use edit summaries. Sure, edit summaries can be misleading (I've seen ones labelled 'grammer' which are just vandalism (yes, they usually spell it wrong). I've just reverted your edit to Middle Ages as there was no obvious reason for it. If I hadn't looked at your other edits I would have assumed it was just driveby vandalism. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know what an "edit summary" is. Anyway, I was looking for a talk page for this image file. The map is a piece a junk and should be deleted. The Huns cover most of northern Europe. Where are all of the German and Slavic groups and tribes? --AJH (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the map and the history of the Huns, it really should read Hunnic Empire. "Huns" implies the people, despite the fact that the Germans and Slavs were still there, just subjugated by Attila and company. --AJH (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted my objections on the Middle Ages talk page. --AJH (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note this section on the Huns page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#20th_Century_use_in_reference_to_Germans. --AJH (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

All of these "Hun" and "Hunnic Empire" maps are very misleading. Take this caption from Attila's page: "The Hunnic Empire stretched from the steppes of Central Asia into modern Germany, and from the River Danube to the Baltic Sea - albeit not simultaneously, as the Huns first appeared in Southern Russia and later moved to Central Europe." So this map is inaccurate as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huns_empire.png. --AJH (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Posting to article talk pages is a good idea. The Edit summary is the box directly below where I am typing right now -- usually it has the section name already in it. Read WP:EDSUM - it'll give you good guidance as to how to use them, eg you can give a brief explanation and refer people to the article talk page if you want to add a lengthier discussion, or you can just say it's a spelling change (& maybe indicate what it was, etc). Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Northamptonshire
Hi ! A Top Priority article you have been involved with has many  issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Northamptonshire, address the different points if you  can, and leave any  comments there. (This is a generic message. if it  has been placed on your talk  page inadvertantly, please ignore it.) --Kudpung --Kudpung (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Malmborg.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Malmborg.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Posting at talk page of deleted article
You made an inquiry at Talk:Leuren Moret. Posting at talk pages of deleted articles is not a recommended practice as such pages are regularly culled. You find the information that you request at Articles for deletion/Leuren Moret (3rd nomination). __meco (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)