User talk:SylviaStanley

Welcome

Hello, SylviaStanley! Welcome to Wikipedia! We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to James Marjoribanks, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: James Marjoribanks was changed by SylviaStanley (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-05-27T13:03:29+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Marjoribanks

Thanks for swiftly adding more info to this info. However, it appears that most of it is taken literally orsemi-literally from his obituary in the Telegraph. While this is a prefectly good source, we should not post copyrighted text in Wikipedia but write our own articles. Slightly rewriting the article while maintaining most of the original is not sufficient: you must base the article on good sources, but completely write it in your own words (apart from quotes, obviously). There is no hurry to do so, the article will not be deleted if it is not expanded soon. Fram (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, Thanks for your comments. I thought I had read somewhere that if references are quoted, you could use information from other sources. I therefore thought that if I quoted the obituaries at the bottom of the page I was at liberty to use the information in them verbatim. Obviously not. I will try to rewrite the new parts of the article. Actually the Daily Telegraph obituary is only a minor part of the new sections I included. But it is true, I used several times sections I took from all four obituaries as the easiest way to write and article. How do I "...base the article on good sources.." Is the obituary a good source? I'm not sure I know how to quote a reference repeatedly. I suppose it must be in the instructions somewhere. Incidentally, you previously deleted sections on James Marjoribanks saying they were unverifiable. One section (on the cocktails at the Peking Embassy) was mentioned in Sir Roy Denman's obituary of Sir James. Should I put the obituary as a reference? The section on the fiancées coming to China and the entry of the Japanese troops to Hankou were in his unpublished memoirs. Should I reference these? He also, before he died, told me one or two things verbally which I would like include in the article. Is this permissible? How would I reference that? SylviaStanley (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can reference by using the template template:citenews. Repeated use of the same source can be achieved by using "refname" instead of "ref". Wikipedia:Footnotes has more info on this. As for the parts I removed earlier: I assumed all of them came from the unpublished memoirs, which are not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia (neither are conversations you had with the subject). Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and those additions are not verifiable. The part I removed which did not come from these memoirs but from an obituary can obviously be reinserted (as long as it is not a verbatim copy of course). These obituaries are good sources, since they are published in wellknown newspapers. Our reliable sources guideline has more info on this. Fram (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for you help Fram. I have re-written the sections France to Retirement and added more references. There were six obituaries on Sir James in the major UK newspapers. Often they all mentioned similar information, so rather than naming all six obituaries each time, I usually used just one or two that I thought were best. SylviaStanley (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help re. image

{{helpme}} I cannot view the image "Regent Terrace Edinburgh2.jpg" on subject page called "Regent Terrace." Can someone please help me? I uploaded the image "Regent Terrace Edinburgh2.jpg" to Wikimedia Commons and it seems to exist OK there. I have tried Firefox, Internet Explorer and Google Chrome browsers but I get the same result - I cannot see the image. I uploaded another file (Regent Terrace Edinburgh.jpg) to Wikipedia and tried placing it in the page "Regent Terrace" but I gor the same result. I tried adding image of the Beltane Fire Festival (copied from the page "Calton Hill") to the page "Regent Terrace" and I could see this image fine. So maybe I am doing something wrong when uploading my images? SylviaStanley (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is fine, as hopefully you will see here. The exact name is File:Regent Terrace Edinburgh2.JPG - I can only imagine that you were typing it incorrectly - capitalization is important.

I will add it to that article now. For more help, you can either;

Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
Talk to us live, with this or this.

Best wishes, Chzz ► 09:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have now added it to Regent Terrace - it was not working there because it had "jpg" in lower-case, not "JPG" in upper-case. I fixed it with this edit. Chzz ► 09:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very many thanks for your help. SylviaStanley (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Sylvia, I just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for your work on GMO related articles. It's always good to see someone adding well referenced information to what is a topic full of controversy. A couple of things you might find useful if you are referencing scientific papers are {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}}. These templates allow you to just add the pmid or doi of a paper as a reference, and then a computer automatically comes along and fills in all the details for you. I might not have explained that tremendously well, so here's an example. If you look at the article, the reference will be complete. I find these save me a lot of time! Smartse (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for pointing out the templates {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}}. I was always mystified in the past about what doi in a reference. SylviaStanley (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genetically modified food

Hi Sylvia. Like Smartse above I have noticed some good contributions to GM articles. Unfortunately I do not think your recent one to Genetically modified food had a reliable enough source (imposteurs.over-blog.com), so I have reverted it. Looking at the paper it say "Greenpeace contributed to the start of the investigations by funding first statistical analyses in 2006, the results were then processed further and evaluated independently by the authors". I don't think we can say more than that until something is published in a more reliable source. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aircon. I agree. The reference was not a good one and I wasn't sure about including it. I will include a reference from GMO Compass which I think is a better sourceSylviaStanley (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here).

JFW | T@lk 22:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WRT referencing requirements please read WP:MEDRS. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for a Short Research Survey

Hi, I am a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University doing some research into editing and reverts on Wikipedia. I am asking Wikipedians that I have found have made contributions to biological sciences articles on Wikipedia to complete a short survey that will help me develop interfaces and tools for newcomers and administrators. The survey will take about 10-15 minutes, and will involve you pretending that you are editing the page on genetic engineering and making some quick judgments on how controversial or likely to be reverted a word sampled from an edit might be. This will help me to validate a model that predicts which words will be reverted based on the history of an article, which if successful will be turned into an interface to help with Wikipedia editing and encourage newcomers. If you would like to participate, please complete the survey on SurveyMonkey here. You can find out more about me on my user page and personal home page. I'm more than happy to talk more about this research on my talk page or by email, and thank you for your time. JeffRz (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs again

As previously stated high quality refs are required per WP:MEDRS Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred references are either review articles or major textbooks.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your last ref was excellent BTW and welcome to Wikipedia :-) It takes a little time to figure everything out. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a note.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments SylviaStanley (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calton Hill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Calton_Hill A discussion is continuing related to some comments you earlier added so I thought it was only fair to let you know.RafikiSykes (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

Hi - I have been working on a lot on the suite of articles in the genetic engineering family. I noticed you have been dipping in and out during this time. Just wanted to ping you to get your thoughts on what I've done to try to rationalize them and to pull together bits of information that were spread all over. Some of it has been pretty dramatic and I've been a bit afraid of offending .... but I followed the Be bold guideline and just did it. Do you hate it? do you like it? Ideas to change it? Just looking for overall feedback... if you don't want to talk generally, that's fine too!.Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think your changes are very good. Like you, I felt that, in general, the articles on genetic engineering needed a lot of attention. People had stuck in bits that were in the wrong place, were at odds with information in other articles and/or had become out of date. I congratulate you on following the Be bold guidelines. I think you have been very successful. As you say, I dip in now and then when I feel that a piece of information is incorrect or out of date. I hope I haven't messed up some of your major changes with my minor ones. I have one more, relatively minor, thing that seems to me poorly described in the genetic engineering articles - the exact procedure used by the European Union when a member state invokes the safeguard clause for GMOs. There is lots of rambling stuff about individual states banning some GM crops but, in my opinion, there is no description of the procedure followed. SylviaStanley (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! I am glad you find the changes to be helpful. I have found all your changes to be great, so from my point of view, rock on! I am an American so am not familiar with EU procedures. If you know the story please fix it! Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you may be in the middle of changing this but I notice that there are significant differences between the GM sugar beet legal sections of the articles "Genetically modified food controversies" and "Sugar beet."SylviaStanley (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comments on my userpage

Thanks!! That was very kind of you to say. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Warrender Baths Club was accepted

Warrender Baths Club, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

-- Wywin (talk | contribs) 19:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing

Hi. I noticed that your edit here introduced content fairly similar to some lines in this Atlantic.com article. I have a conflict of interest with The Atlantic, so I'm not going to revert your edit, but I'd encourage you to be more careful about this kind of thing in the future, and to see if maybe you can reword what you wrote here a little bit. I don't think you were trying to do anything wrong, but we're very careful about copyrights here, and really try to avoid anything that could be seen as copying from other sources, even if it's only a few sentence fragments. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PinkAmpersand. Thanks for the message. This is very interesting. I have never read the article in the Atlantic you refer to. I didn't even know it existed. If you think my entry is somewhat similar to the Atlantic article which I have never seen, perhaps, if I have time, I will read the Atlantic article carefully and try to reword my entry a bit. SylviaStanley (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar
	Gerald Shields, founder of the North Korean Fashion Watch, awards you the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar for your continuing efforts to add reliable and poignant discussions about North Korean topics, such as Ri Sol-ju. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)\|}[reply]

Battle of Waterloo

With this edit on 27 Nov 2014, you added an inline citation to a book but you did not include a page number. Please could you add it now? -- PBS (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do PBS. However, Simm's book "The Longest Afternoon: The 400 Men Who Decided the Battle of Waterloo" describes in minute detail the battle of the 400 German and British soldiers at La Haye Sainte holding off Napoleon's soldiers during the battle of Waterloo. This citation comes next to the Wikipedia text: "But these brave Germans had held the center of the battlefield for almost the entire day. This had stalled the French advance." This is essentially a description of Simm's whole book. I had purposely left out the page number when I entered the reference. I will insert the pages where there are the final conclusions in the book when I get a copy out of the library again.SylviaStanley (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Fogle

Hey, thanks for your addition to List of wrongful convictions in the United States. Would you be able to create at least a stub article for Larry Fogle? That's one of the requirements for addition to the list. Otherwise, the list would be unrealistically lengthy. Bali88 (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC) OK. Will do.[reply]

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "as of" in Asperger's syndrome

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SylviaStanley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gene therapy

Hi! In case you haven't watchlisted it, I've made some additions to the article. Some additional ref's as well as adding "a committee of" to your edit, because the report didn't come from the entirety of the 2 academies. DennisPietras (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks!SylviaStanley (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SylviaStanley. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Coley (January 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mortee was:

This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT for more information.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Hi, Sylvia. I wrote the response below before I looked at your userpage and realised you've been here since 2008 (!) I'm including it unchanged to keep myself honest, but it probably comes across as patronizing now. You must know all this stuff much better than me, and I dare say you'd be better placed than me to review articles here. You're welcome to ignore the review and publish anyway - AfC is entirely optional - but I'd guess you went through the process in order to get a second opinion, so here it is anyway. All the very best, Mortee (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

This is well-written in itself. Clear sentences, lots of in-line references. A couple of issues, however:

It says he was born in 1978. That would make him 0 years old at the time of the murder, which would make his conviction a surprise!
You can't use GoFundMe as a source this way; there are no editorial controls. The Time URL gives a 404 error so ideally find a working link or a replacement story. For preference, a broadsheet would be a stronger reference than the Post, but that's not crucial. The sentence you're using it to cite is probably covered by the other stories included.
There may also be questions about notability. This seems like a striking case, but do read WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Currently all the sources on the article are from the 21st to the 24th of November 2017, which is a narrow span of time and also very recent. It would help the case if you found stories from December of January, or stories about changes that were made as a result of this case; perhaps there were proposals to change the law about when DNA evidence can be destroyed, or about compensation for wrongful imprisonments, I don't know.

Sorry it took so long for your article to be reviewed. There's still a very long backlog. Mortee (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Richard Coley and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Richard Coley, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mortee (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Coley (March 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

While an interesting story I don't believe this would pass WP:BLP1E.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Richard Coley and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Richard Coley, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SylviaStanley! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Coley has been accepted

Richard Coley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genealogical DNA test

I'm sorry for reverting your edit. It wasn't on purpose. Regards. Cynko (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Female sperm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gene editing

Reproductive technology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gene editing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SylviaStanley. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic genealogy

Hi SylviaStanley. I made some changes to Genetic genealogy in line with MOS:TENSE that reversed some of your recent edits (I only realized this while editing when I saw the recent edit history). I was wondering why you changed the tense to past tense? Thanks Helen Online 11:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HelenOnline, in my opinion, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia site that describes things that have happened in the past. I don't think it is a news site. So my normal knee-jerk reaction to any present tense is to change it to the past. Also, even if you have good reasons for describing something in the present tense, in my experience, once the news-worthiness of a Wikipedia article has declined, nobody bothers to update it. So I've found present tenses describing things that have happened 10 or 15 years ago although the facts have changed completely in the meantime. If you feel strongly about putting present tenses please do. But if things change, please come back and update the site. For example, if, say, National Geographic in the future transferred their Genetic genealogy stuff to some other organisation which had a completely different way of working, please don't leave forever the present tense in this article. Regards SylviaStanley (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Wikipedia is not a news site, but it also does not only describe historical events. It is not a question of feelings or personal preference. We have a sensible MOS that editors may challenge directly but not ignore. Please don't use the past tense when it is not yet applicable. It can be misleading, and make work for other editors. When I read the latest wording of the GG article it didn't make sense to me and I wondered what had changed that I was unaware of, so I asked you about it. It could be misleading for readers less informed than me, unless they undertake further research. Also nobody is obliged to update the site, so please don't suggest that. Helen Online 08:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I hadn't read the Manual of Style entry on verb tense. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll be more careful in future.SylviaStanley (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Helen Online 15:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding Parabon as a contributor to the Manteuffel case. Full Genomes Corp. did the DNA analysis. Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adgqet (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Adget. If FGC did the DNA analysis, who did the genetic genealogy analysis on the Manteuffel case? SylviaStanley (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sacramento District Attorney team did the genetic genealogy analysis. Detectives are now doing many of the genetic genealogy analyses.

Adgqet (talk)

Thanks. I see how I got that wrong. The article I looked at did not mention how the the genealogical analysis was done. But there was a quote from CeCe Moore of Parabon in the article so I wrongly assumed Parabon had done the analysis.SylviaStanley (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Marden Manor Park

Message for SylviaStanley Hi I am new to Wiki, so not sure if this is a good way to make contact, so hope you don't mind. I am writing a non profit book and would like to include this photo. My book covers the village Bletchingley surrey and the various Lords of the Manor. Sir Robert Clayton was Lord of the Manor of Bletchingley and built the house at Marden, as i'm sure you know. Would you be able to supply a higher resolution photo of painting and also do you know the history of it and the artist ? Yours is a lovely painting; the only other painting I know of is an 1822 one by John Hassell at the Surrey History Centre, Woking; but it is rather plain compared to yours.

Many Thanks - Dave Davehistoryprojects (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Dave.

I would like to help you but I'm not sure if I can very much.

The painting comes from a large book of paintings in memory of "Edward Marjoribanks of Greenlands, Bucks." Edward Marjoribanks (1776-1868) was a distant relative of my wife. He was a partner in Coutts Bank. The book is mostly a series of paintings of country houses in which he and his family appear to have stayed - probably for holiday periods. My father-in-law (now deceased) bought the book from an antique shop many years ago.

Below the painting is written

"Marden Park, Surrey. The property of Sir William Clayton, rented by Edward Marjoribanks 1829 - a frightfully severe winter with very deep snow."

At the bottom right hand side of the painting there is a signature M. Conradi 1874. All of the paintings in the book were signed by M. Conradi who was presumably the artist. I found a couple of web pages (https://www.invaluable.com/artist/conradi-moritz-3wqdznllp4/sold-at-auction-prices/ ; https://www.askart.com/artist/Moritz_Conradi/11023768/Moritz_Conradi.aspx ; https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-3822865) that mention a painter Moritz Conradi at that time so maybe that's him. One page I found (http://www.wilnitsky.at/scripts/redgallery1.dll/details?No=32298) gave the following:

"Moritz Conradi was an English artist mentioned between 1840 and 1876. In 1840-1843 he studied at the Dresden Academy and, in 1844, attended the Berlin Academy. He mainly lived in London but also spent three years (1870-73) in Glasgow. Conradi exhibited from 1865 to 1876 at the London Royal Academy."

In the book "Family Business: A Memoir" by professor Peter J. Conradi (Seren, 2019;ISBN 9781781725023) Moritz Conradi is mentioned on pages 105-107. Moritz is described as a German Jew who was born in Germany in 1830, arrived in London in 1859 and died in Marylebone in 1887. He seems to have been a reasonably successful painter in his day. His miniatures of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, copied from daguerreotypes in 1861, were bought by Queen Victoria and still feature in the Royal Collection to this day.

I can upload another photo of the painting, which may be higher resolution, to Wikipedia if you like.SylviaStanley (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for supplying this information. In my book I have tried to avoid being lazy and using images from the web, but in this case, its such a good picture compared to the only other one I have found. So now I can at least credit the original source and artist. If you are able to upload a higher quality / resolution pic that would be great. I think the Iphone 4 resolution was quite low in the day, compared to more modern phones. You are obviously good with photography, as it a nice copy you have uploaded. I could probably get away with using the existing image but if you are able to upload one from a later phone or digital camera that would be fantastic. Many thanks - Dave Davehistoryprojects (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently there is another painting called "Marden Park with hanging beech wood to the South 1829." I could add this too. SylviaStanley (talk) 13: 13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is a limit on file size uploads on Wiki ? Davehistoryprojects (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sounds great. Davehistoryprojects (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be correct that is a depiction of the house in 1829 but painted in 1874? Does the book have a publication date? Thanks again - Dave Davehistoryprojects (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The paintings commemorate the dates when Edward Marjoribanks and his family rented these country manor houses. But they were painted about 1869-1874. I've never heard of Wikipedia having a maximum file upload size. SylviaStanley (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just wondered if you were able to upload a higher resolution picture of Marden Park. Kind Regards - Dave Davehistoryprojects (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS I would love to see the other picture of Marden House you mentioned Davehistoryprojects (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I uploaded a photo of the painting taken with my Iphone 6. Doesn't look like there's a big difference in resolution. Yes I added a picture of the park too.SylviaStanley (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all your help. They are of a slightly bigger file size so that is a help. It nice to see the hand written captions too. Again many many thanks - Dave Davehistoryprojects (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS I noticed that above you mentioned Edward Marjoribanks (1776-1868), but on the image page, or some of them, you have (1776-1858). Are you able to confirm which is correct ? Thanks - Dave Davehistoryprojects (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. Should have been: born The Lees, Berwickshire 31 May 1778 died Greenlands, Bucks 17 Sep 1868. He is my wife's 6th cousin 5x removed. Told you he was a very distant relative of my wife!SylviaStanley (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]