User talk:X5dna

To contact X5dna (Jerry Emanuelson), please email: x5dna@futurescience.com      X5dna (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome and comment
Nice to see you editing Wikipedia. Lots of people here can address any questions you might have. For chemistry articles, a good place to ask is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. There are many places in this project where you can help.

A comment on adding journal references to articles as in Arginine. Wikipedia does not aspire to compete with technical review journals. Rather, the emphasis in Wiki-articles is on secondary or even better tertiary (reviews of reviews, textbooks)-like citations. See WP:SECONDARY.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Review Articles
I believe that nearly all of the medical journal references that I added to the Arginine article (and other articles related to medicine) were categorized as "Review Articles" by the National Library of Medicine. Some Wikipedia articles, such as the Arginine article, use a citation format that has no logical place for the "Review" designation.

I went back to the Arginine article and added the word "REVIEW" after the page number to the references that were specifically designated as review articles by the National Library of Medicine "Publication Type." Using the page number location was the only location for the word "REVIEW" that would not interfere with important aspects of the citation format used in the article. When looking at references, it's always nice to know which are review articles and which are not since the review articles are much more likely to contain accurate information. X5dna (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bethe error, really?
In the article on the electromagnetic pulse you deleted my words, "Typically the [HEMP] device is designed to maximise the EMP effect as its primary cause of damage, i.e. the nuclear explosion is merely a means of generating the EMP. Due to its altitude, a HEMP has an effect over a wide area," deeming them in your edit comment to make the "Bethe error". My words were intended to be entirely general and make no assumptions about either the mechanism or its location - in what way did they display Bethe's error?

Also, you have added extensive detail which is - or should be - fully covered in the article on Nuclear electromagnetic pulse, so does not need repeating here. I feel that the shorter summary is the more appropriate for the more general article. I am also concerned that your phrase "outside the weapon" is not a good one.

But I am reluctant to revert in case you know something I don't. Would you be willing explain your thinking to me? - &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bethe Error Explained
In October, 1957, the Nobel Prize winning physicist Hans Bethe wrote a report for Los Alamos National Laboratory entitled "Electromagnetic Signal Expected from High-Altitude Test" (Report LA-2173).

In that report, Bethe assumed that Compton electrons ejected from air molecules in the upper atmosphere would travel in a straight line. He neglected the effects of the Earth's magnetic field. This caused him to underestimate the magnitude of the field strength of the HEMP signal by a factor of approximately 10,000. This error caused all of the electromagnetic instrumentation on high-altitude nuclear tests between 1957 and mid-1962 to be set so that the HEMP signal could not be measured. Even the polarity of the signal of HEMP vs. low-altitude NEMP is completely different.

The important thing is that one cannot just extrapolate the results of a low-altitude detonation to a higher altitude.

Perhaps my "outside of the weapon" is not the best choice of words, but the important point is that the electromagnetic pulse from HEMP comes from a region in the stratosphere between 20 and 40 km. above the ground. The belief that the HEMP originates in the weapon itself has cause all kinds of confusion and much misunderstanding about HEMP propagation.

Although we can assume that HEMP weapons today are designed to maximize HEMP by maximizing gamma ray output at the cost of other effects, we have no way of knowing that. All of the real world HEMP generation was accidental, although a primary purpose of the last few high-altitude test in October, 1962 was to try to understand this curious phenomenon. The mechanism wasn't even understood by anyone until after the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty was signed.

Steelpillow, I understand and completely agree with your reasons for wanting to limit the number of words devoted to HEMP in the general EMP article, but it is better to say nothing about HEMP than to imply that it is just a high-altitude version of low-altitude NEMP. Also, it is very important to recognize that HEMP generation actually occurs far from the weapon detonation point (at least, for all known nuclear weapons).

If you can shorten my addition, while still addressing my concerns, then that would be fine with me. I do not like to be wordy.

(Unfortunately, the Bethe report mentioned above can't be cited on Wikipedia because it remains classified by the U.S. government for reasons that are probably obvious. Bethe was a great physicist.  Some unclassified reports, though, have referenced Bethe's October, 1957 report.) X5dna (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly so. I think I can see one potential ambiguity in my words. Where I write "Due to its altitude, a HEMP has an effect over a wide area," When I wrote that, the "it" referred to the device, subject of the preceding sentence. I suspect that you took the "it" to refer to the HEMP phenomenon, subject of the second clause of the second sentence. Strict rules of grammar are on my side, but I was also taught to avoid such ambiguities. Would you be happy with this these small alterations (shown bold):
 * "Typically the [HEMP] device is designed to maximise the EMP effect as its primary cause of damage, i.e. the nuclear explosion is merely a means of generating the EMP. Due the altitude of the explosion, a HEMP is generated over a wide area."
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [updated 13:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)]


 * How about, "Typically the HEMP device produces the EMP as its primary damage mechanism. The nuclear device does this by producing gamma rays, which in turn are converted into EMP in the mid-stratosphere over a wide area within line of sight to the detonation".


 * What is in the quotation marks above is brief, conveys the correct HEMP generation mechanism without going into details, and does not tend to mislead anyone into confusing HEMP as being the same as low-altitude NEMP, but with greater area coverage. X5dna (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem with that. In fact I've just made the change. Many thanks for your patience. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:ArthurCovey.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Tables and Notes
X5dna, thanks for the updates to the K5 page. Personally, I like the notes moved to the end as you did; I originally had them there, but got multiple suggestions to move them to just under teh table. Is there some kind of standard for this that I can site for one place or another? BTW, I understand you live in Colo Springs; I live in Littleton. SkoreKeep (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, SkoreKeep. I've never found any standard way of doing table notes on Wikipedia. In most cases, I think that it does make better sense to locate the notes immediately under the table.  In some cases, though, like the Soviet K Project article, locating the notes immediately after the table tends to obscure the main text and make the overall article more difficult to read.


 * In most cases, I believe that the location of the table notes will depend upon the relative size of the table as compared with the text in the main body of the article. In the case of the Soviet K Project article, the size of the table is relatively large compared with the main body text.


 * While I have your attention, please see my latest comment on the Talk:Operation Fishbowl page. There are some problems regarding historical time zones that are common to many of the nuclear weapons testing articles.  This includes the Soviet K Project article as well as all of the Pacific tests.  I don't know all the answers to the historical time zone problem.  I know that the Line Islands moved to the other side of the International Date Line in the 1990s.  A few years ago, I found some references to historical time zones that seemed authoritative, but I can't find all of those references now.  One that I did find, that has information that seems to correspond with my earlier research, is in the map at this link. X5dna (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll make a special edit to move the notes for the K Project article the next time I sweep it.


 * As for timezones, you no doubt have a better handle on that than I do; I forgot to consider historical timezones when I added all that to my database. So, if you note anything wrong, please send it to me and I'll follow up. I tried to spot check some of the dates/times to assure myself that they were all UT times, and the ones I checked seemed to be OK, but there are so many sources that sometimes I wonder. Right now, I changed Kirimati to HAST (-10) with the note: "In use before 1995; uses LINT since then." I pointedly don't include the LINT offset so as not to confuse anyone.  I changed Johnston Island to be in JIT (-11), and the note: "Believed in use during Dominic, Fishbowl. ". The reference is to the Hoerlin paper. SkoreKeep (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've found at least one additional reference to the time zone difference at Johnston Island as compared with the time zone used today. That was in an old edition of the CIA World Factbook.  It confirms the Hoerlin paper. I hope to find the time soon to go through old online editions of the CIA World Factbook and determine what year this Johnston Island time zone change was made. That would be interesting historical information. All that I can say now is that the Johnston Island time zone change was made between 1969 and 2005.
 * The same old edition of the CIA World Factbook also confirmed that the time zone for central Kazakhstan was different during the Soviet Project K tests of the 1960s (UTC+5) compared to the one that is used today (UTC+6). X5dna (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I found a reference concerning Kazakhstan's time zones. There was apparently a UU list at one time concerning timezones, listings from an ascii database maintained by Paul Eggert.  I found a fairly late copy (2013-08-11) of the Asia part of the list, at http://www.ietf.org/timezones/data/asia, which tells how the five timezones in Kazakhstan came to be (or at least when).  His sources are mostly from users in the countries involved, and a couple of books which he lists at the top of the file. More reliable than nothing, I suppose, but I saw one earlier file in the same format that showed Johnston Island in the Hawaiian timezone since the "beginning of time".


 * I also read a 40 page history of Johnston last night. They didn't mention timezones throughout, but the history was pretty interesting all on its own.  The last permanent residents left the island on June 4th, 2004 after having burned 25,000 barrels of Agent Orange stored there, including 4000 leakers, cleaned up plutonium contamination from the bomb tests,  destroyed the Okinawa cache of chemical weapons, cleaned up their own messes (bullet lead at the small arms firing range, among others), and knocked down all the buildings and carted it all off, and they left behind a thriving bird sanctuary. It's nice to hear of an environmental success, once in a while.  SkoreKeep (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That is very interesting information that you found on Kazakhstan time zones. The Alma-Ata time zone information correlates with some things that I read several years ago (but I can't find those references now).  I never did find the exact dates of the time zone changes when I was looking at this problem originally.  It looks like Alma-Ata was on UTC+5 from June 21, 1930 until about the time that Kazakhstan got its independence in late 1991.
 * The International Atlas by Shanks and Pottenger looks like exactly the reference that I've been looking for since long ago. My local library has a copy, so I will probably be paying them a visit soon.
 * Regarding Johnston Island: I've been recently reading some of the same fascinating history of the last 60 years of Johnston Island. It appears that Johnston Island was under Hawaiian time whenever it was primarily under civilian control.
 * During most of 1958, however, it was controlled by the U.S. military during Operation Newsreel (for Teak and Orange) as well as other tests of Operation Hardtack I. Also, during all of 1962, it was controlled by the U.S. military during Operation Fishbowl (and many other Dominic tests).  During all of these time periods of nuclear testing, Johnston Island was on Hawaii minus one hour or UTC minus 11 hours.  I've found several references for this.
 * Apparently, this was done because most of the personnel during these time periods had to spend much of their time aboard ships in international waters near Johnston Island. (After the Bluegill Prime disaster, Johnston Island was uninhabitable for a time unless people were in radiation suits.) Because of where these ships were stationed for extended periods, the longitudinal meridian dictated that the ships were on UTC-11. It was not practical for Johnston Island to be in a different time zone from all of the other (1958) Operation Newsreel and Hardtack personnel and the 1962 Operation Fishbowl personnel on nearby ships (as well as the other Dominic tests of 1962).
 * Some references are from the Teak and Orange times of Operation Newsreel (Hardtack). See page 12 of http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/360632.pdf . Also, see pages 23 and 24 of http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a995454.pdf . Those references are from the Defense Technical Information Center.
 * Note that the times are listed wrong in the tables for Operation Hardtack I for the Teak and Orange tests. (The minutes appear to be transposed.)  The UT times for Teak and Orange can also be confirmed using any of the references at the bottom of that Operation Hardtack I page.  I'll let you take care of that, SkoreKeep, since the information on Teak and Orange is apparently wrong in your database.
 * Another reference for the UTC-11 time used during nuclear testing on Johnston Island is the Herman Hoerlin reference mentioned on the Operation Fishbowl page. X5dna (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I found out that the timezone database is a project of IANA (the outfit that keep domains and IP numbers straight for the Internet). It started out a long time ago in uunet world as an ascii database to track timezone history for the early internet/arpanet on UNIX/BSD systems. It is available for full download, along with UNIX/POSIX applications that use it to answer time questions affected by timezones. IANA farmed out the actual maintenance to IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force), and the database and programs are at http://www.ietf.org/timezones/; the data is in the data folder there.
 * I'll review the Teak and Orange times, and update the page. When you can, take a look at Fishbowl, I swept that page a few days ago.
 * Fixed the error. I also found the hour for Teak was off; should have been 10, not 09, according to Hoerlin.


 * Oh, my. I've been going through the timezones in the database, and there are lots of changes required to get the right local time at the time of the testing.


 * Marshall Island time is a bit screwier than previously thought. From 1901 to October 1969 (our dates in question) MHT was GMT+11. From Oct 1969 to present, Majuro went with redefining MHT to GMT+12, while Kwajalein went with their own zone KWAT (GMT-12) until Aug 20, 1993 and then merged back with Majuro for MHT (GMT+12). Bikini and Eniwetak are much closer to Kwajalein than Majuro, but I have no idea which way they went, and for us that's moot anyway. So, the Eniwetak DST mentioned by Hoerlin (+12) over just the Yucca test (which happened over open ocean 210km NW of Eniwetok) only aren't the same as MHT at that time. It's Johnston Island all over again.


 * There are tons of other changes, in Russia, Uzbek, Turkmen, Ukraine, Hawaii (they don't use HAST (-10), they use HST (-10)). Amchitka used BeringST (-11) at the time of the testing. Some of the Russian and Kazakhstan time zones have two or three different offsets across the range of testing dates. China used UrumqiST (GMT+6) in Lop Nur when testing started, then changed to ChinaST (GMT+8) halfway through. Thank heavens Almaty (Semipalatinsk) and Moscow (Novaya Zemlya) were stable. The Kirimati time during the times of testing was LINT (GMT-10 hrs, 40 minutes). And so on. I'm thinking of putting together an "Atomic Testing Timezones" wiki page just to document all the differences.


 * BTW, I emailed our findings about Johnston to Paul Eggert (tz@iana.org) who is IANA's respondent for tz data. He is sending it out in his email list and will at least mention it in the database, though I don't know how it will get included, since we don't have end-to-end dates for the use of the military time. I may do the same for "Eniwetok Time". SkoreKeep (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I, too, have found that the more that I dig into this, the more complicated it gets. There are so many references to Johnston Island time being Hawaii minus one hour during the nuclear testing era that I am sure of that one. I haven't seen any start and end dates for that Johnston Island time, however.


 * Kazakhstan is even more complicated. I looked at a 1991 copy of The International Atlas (compiled before the collapse of the Soviet Union) in the local library and they have Alma-Ata time as being UT+5 from May 2, 1924 to March 1, 1957; then changing to UT+6 until April 1, 1981.  This contradicts Paul Eggert's information, but I don't have access to the later editions of The International Atlas.  The later editions were written after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and so may have more accurate information.  I would tend to trust Paul Eggert's information more on Kazakhstan.


 * I believe that one of the problems with Soviet time zones is that there are periods when the Soviets went to year-round Daylight Saving Time, then later decided to "spring forward" an additional hour during the summer.


 * I think that having a Wikipedia article about "Nuclear Testing Time Zones" is a great idea. Such an article may bring out even better sources of information. X5dna (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like a copy of your Google Earth nuclear testing database as soon as the time zone situation is stabilized, and thank you for the offer. X5dna (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Tons of TNT equivalent
X5dna, you edited Fishbowl to change the inforbox yields from Mt of TNT equiv to just Mt with the note: "In the context of energy yield, tons of TNT is an approximation with large tolerances. Tons (without "of TNT") refers to a precisely defined unit." I agree with the note, but then the actual yields of atomic tests are approximations with fairly large tolerances, and everyone (who knows about them) agrees; the only thing that Mt/TNT has a use for is in measuring atomic tests' yields. Isn't that so? ..or not? SkoreKeep (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree completely that there are large inaccuracies in measuring nuclear test yields. Different methods for the measurement of nuclear test yields don't even agree with each other.
 * While the origin of a "ton" in terms of energy yield was originally based upon tons of TNT, it is now a precisely defined unit of energy (4.184 gigajoules). Therefore, using the phrase "tons of TNT" is describing the historical context of the unit, and is not adding anything useful to the energy measurement in any non-historical context.  To me, this would be a bit like adding "named for the Italian physicist" to the use of the term "volts." X5dna (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ummm, so then the megaton weight/mass and the megaton energy should be two different measures with the same unit name and abbreviation, the difference only to be determined by context? If this is the case, we need to have a talk with the guys who program the convert template, so it can still be used to do the automatic conversion.  I suppose it consists in using the convert like I did but getting them to not emit the "of TNT" to the output, or at least making the output optional so we can turn it off, so it's on our heads and not theirs. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that this situation is similar to the pounds (force) and pounds (mass) situation. They are two different units with the use determined by context.  In ordinary language, one usually just uses the term "pounds" and the context makes the meaning obvious.
 * I haven't looked into the details of how the automatic convert function is done. There may be an additional problem in this regard since both kilotons (U.S. spelling) and kilotonnes (British spelling) should probably be covered.  By Wikipedia suggested use, the spelling may be determined by the spelling convention used when the article is begun, although U.S. spelling should generally be used for U.S.-specific topics and British spelling for U.K.-specific topics.
 * One reason that I was so quick to change "megatonnes of TNT" to "megatons" in the Operation Fishbowl article is that this is a U.S. topic, and was begun using U.S. spelling, and the single instance of the use of British spelling in the infobox looked rather strange in this context.
 * There are British official documents, however, that use the U.S. spelling for tons when referring to the energy yield of nuclear weapons. I think that this is done because of the U.S. origins of "ton" as a measurement of energy, and also because it further clarifies the difference between ton (energy) and tonne (weight or mass). X5dna (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll change the note to get the tonnes out. I was of the belief that "tonne" implied metric ton.   Also, I swept the K project from the database this evening, so you need to take a look at it and see how the formatting and so on held up. I tried to include all the changes that yoou've made up to this point; correct anythiing that needs it, and I'll roll that back into the database.


 * The "tonne" spelling does imply a metric ton (mass or weight), and it is a legitimate spelling for the metric ton as a unit of mass or weight.
 * I did a bit of additional research on the "ton" vs. "tonne" problem. Most of the places that I can find that imply that "tonne," "kilotonne" and "megatonne" might be legitimate alternative spellings for the unit of energy are unreferenced mentions within Wikipedia.  I have never seen this spelling used within any official reports of any kind on nuclear weapons.  In scientific papers and technical reports, the spelling is always "kiloton" or "megaton."
 * I don't see any significant problems in the Soviet K Project article resulting from your last sweep of the database. One minor problem with all of the nuclear tables is that, in most cases, they introduce some extraneous information.  One example in the case of rocket-launched tests is the "elv: 0 m (0 ft)" in the Soviet K Project article.  Under the table notes, the elevation note correctly states that the elevation numbers may not be correct for rocket launched tests.  Perhaps the elevation number could just be omitted  rather than given as zero for rocket launched test that are not detonated over the ocean? I don't know how difficult this is. (Incidently, the Sary Shagan test range is more than 340 meters above sea level at its lowest point.) X5dna (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll change the name to "-ton" in the notes. I did some looking into it and I have to agree that kiloton, etc are all measurements of energy, and trying to reconcile the the mass of "TNT equivalent" is beating a dead horse.   About the elevation thing, yeah, I need to fix that.  I did it for the explosions themselves, and I just need to copy the code.  Thanks for pointing it out. The problem is that for all the blasts the elevation and height are at least theoretically distinct items.  But when they say that the John air-to-air test happened at 18,000 feet are they referring to airplane altitude (which is referenced to sea level) or distance above the Earth, which is how all the other tests (balloons, towers, tunnels, etc) are all measured?  And that goes by extension for all other rocket flights.  If you have any insight on that, especially as a former pilot, I'd appreciate it.SkoreKeep (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have any ideas on how to reconcile the elevation-height-altitude problem. The people who originally documented the more than 2000 nuclear tests from 1945 to 1998 obviously had no regard for the poor Wikipedia editors of the future who would have to try to make sense of what they wrote and summarize all of the information into a common tabular format.
 * My only suggestion is that we continue to do as we are doing now, and try to make sure that the information in each table is correct (especially for unusual nuclear delivery systems) and that it is not misleading to readers who may not understand all of the reporting problems for each unique nuclear test. X5dna (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. *Sigh*  You'd think they'd have had some respect for people trying to duplicate and document their every move.  Unfortunately, I've had my hands in enough technical things to know that there's times when personal secrecy is the better part.  But still.


 * I have prepared a kmz file from my atomic testing database; it's hosted on the Google Earth users group. I find that often it is easier to look up data on the globe in a geographical layout than it is on wiki pages.  It's probably about 400 kb in kmz (compressed) form.  Let me know if you'd like a copy.

Starfish Prime - altitude claims
X5dna, I've commented at Talk:Starfish_Prime about the altitude claims in that article. I see you added these in this edit:. I may simply have missed the relevant quote from the source, so if you can point it out to me, please do. - Crosbie 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

NEMP
Hi, in the article on the electromagnetic pulse, I saw you deleted most discussion of the role of gamma rays in NEMP, on the basis that it was untrue. This mechanism is explained in the main article on the nuclear electromagnetic pulse, where there is no suggestion that it is untrue. If the two treatments are inconsistent, please can you discuss these differences and any proposed changes on the article talk page before deleting it. 11:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added a section on the electromagnetic pulse talk page explaining the problems with the current description of nuclear EMP. It is only the most recent additions that I have a problem with.
 * What is needed are public domain images illustrating the mechanism by which nuclear weapons generate EMP. I am pretty sure that I can find one that, at least, illustrates low-altitude nuclear EMP.  The generation of high-altitude nuclear EMP is more difficult to illustrate because it is a very three-dimensional process, especially in the way that the relativistic electrons interact with the Earth's magnetic field.   At lower altitudes, the denser air stops the energetic electrons before they can interact in any significant way with the geomagnetic field.  So at lower altitudes, these energetic electrons travel in straight lines.  At higher altitudes, the energetic electrons spiral around the geomagnetic field lines and generate a much larger pulse by a different mechanism.  The high-altitude coherent spiraling causes the mid-stratosphere to essentially become a momentary phased-array antenna. X5dna (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2015 (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) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Need help with vandalism on a biography of a living person.
I need assistance with repeated misinformation being placed by an anonymous user on the biography of a living person. This involves the article about a very notable young singer from Kazakhstan. The article is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daneliya_Tuleshova

The problem was initially alerted to me by a discussion on YouTube.

At first, I believed that this was a well-meaning error caused by an external error on a web page related to the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. That external error indicated that Daneliya Tuleshova was born in 2007, when she was actually born in 2006. Her actual birth year can be verified in numerous other references. I have added 5 such references to the article, including 2 references from Daneliya Tuleshova herself.

The subject of the article was actually born on July 18, 2006.

Adding an excessive number of references for something as simple as a birth year quickly becomes cumbersome and ridiculous.

I know that this sort of thing is not an infrequent occurrence on Wikipedia, but I don't know how to proceed further.
 * The article has now been protected from editing; if the issue continues or resumes after the protection expires, please make a report at WP:RFPP, or you can report an editor for violating WP:BLP at WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Diana Ankudinova.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Diana Ankudinova.ogg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 12:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Electromagnetic pulse in popular culture for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Electromagnetic pulse in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Electromagnetic pulse in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)