text:
Talk:Intergenic region

Percentages of intergenic regions in human?
I have added some rough percentages as opposed " a large number" but the paper is out of date. Will change this once i find a more suitable reference DesiLady (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I think the quoted percentage is completely incorrect. The cited source names those percentages in the context of "genome [that] does not code for proteins". That would include e.g. introns which even according to the article are not inter(!)genic. That's a pretty big error as ~26% of human genome are introns... --Maxnoka (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Image needed

 * The article looks like it needs a better picture. Alexbateman (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Describing intergenic regions in the introduction
"Intergenic regions are a subset of noncoding DNA." This is a useless statement. There's nothing special about noncoding DNA and it's pefectly obvious that the regions between genes are not part of genes.

"Occasionally some intergenic DNA acts to control genes nearby, ... " Yes, it's true that most regulatory elements are located outside of a gene but why stop there? Some integenic regions are centromeres, origins of replication, and scaffold attachment regions. Do we really want to get into all of those descriptions when they are covered in numerous other Wikipedia articles?

" ... but most of it has no currently known function." I just listed a bunch of known functions. Most of the rest is known to be junk DNA. This is not the place to be discussing those features and the evidence that supports them.

"It is one of the DNA sequences sometimes referred to as junk DNA, ..." No, that's not true. Nobody has ever said that all intergenic regions are junk DNA. That would be silly.

"... though it is only one phenomenon labeled such and in scientific studies today, the term is less used." The term "junk DNA" is widely used, just as you would expect since 90% of our genome is junk. There will be a separate article on junk DNA where the evidence will be described.

"Recently transcribed RNA from the DNA fragments in intergenic regions were known as 'dark matter' or 'dark matter transcripts'." RNA produced from intergenic regions is, by definition, not from a gene. These are spurious transcripts or junk RNA. (What else could they be if they aren't from a gene?) The term 'dark matter' is used by opponents of junk DNA who usually don't understand how much we know about our genome.

I will be reposting my version of the introduction in a few days unless I hear some convincing arguments for keeping the old out-of-date material that Praxidicae restored.

Genome42 (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Praxidicae seems to be confused about the importance of "sourced information." I have a source that says Trump won the 2020 Presidential election but that doesn't mean it should be posted as if it were a fact on the Wikipedia page for US elections. Wikipedia editors have to use a bit of discretion in choosing sources. Not all sources are correct - those saying or implying that we don't understand intergenic DNA are wrong.

 * Genome42 (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Praxidicae is attempting to collaborate with me on the 'allele' article but she hasn't made any attempt to respond to my comments here so I'll assume she agrees with me and I'll restore my edits.
 * Genome42 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Praxidicae reverted my edit within one minute and added the comment "Stop removing SOURCED CONTENT without an adequate explanation." It's pretty clear that she isn't reading what I've posted here and isn't interested in collaborating to improve the article on 'Intergenic region.'

 * I undid her deletion. Let's see if she wants to continue an edit war. If so, I have no choice but to report her for harassment.
 * Genome42 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are now edit warring with this edit and are incorrect. If the issue is that the source or even content is outdated, you update it with reliable sources, you don't remove it outright and then add unsourced content. I am really, really disgusted by the lack of collaboration from you and near constant personal attacks, your entire attitude and comments here are a really wonderful example of why Wikipedia lacks women editors in STEM fields in particular. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for finally engaging in a discussion. Please respond to the comments I made above.
 * You and I are experienced Wikipedia users (I started editing 15 years ago) so we both know (or should know) what the issues are all about. It's a question of "reliable" sources and who is best positioned to determine what sources represent the current mainstream scientific viewpoint. In some cases, like here, the old 'sourced' content is unreliable (i.e. wrong) and irrelevant and that's why it was removed.
 * If you want to argue that the old material is reliable and relevant and should be retained then please state your case. I'm happy to listen to your scientific arguments and collaborate with you to improve the article on intergenic DNA and its possible function.
 * I'm also more than happy to discuss with you whether the views of junk DNA and dark matter that were described in the old version are scientifically accurate or not. Isn't that the main point? Genome42 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please re-read what I've written to you - you need to provide sources that either show that this is incorrect or show consensus that the sources (and thus the content) are unreliable and incorrect. Your field of expertise is not relevant in the absence of reliable sources. Adding unsourced content is not a solution to content existing that you, as an individual, disagree with. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are the three sentences in the introduction that you want to keep.
 * "Occasionally some intergenic DNA acts to control genes nearby, but most of it has no currently known function." There is no source for this misleading statement. It is partially correct but extremely misleading for several reasons that are explained in Non-coding DNA. It's also irrelevant because everyone already knows about regulatory sequences.
 * "It is one of the DNA sequences sometimes referred to as junk DNA, though it is only one phenomenon labeled such and in scientific studies today, the term is less used." There is no source to back up this claim. It's an incorrect statement but it's difficult for me to provide a source that refutes an incorrect statement. In any case, the statement doesn't belong here. This is not the place to bring up the junk DNA controversy.
 * "Recently transcribed RNA from the DNA fragments in intergenic regions were known as 'dark matter' or 'dark matter transcripts'." The source quoted here is a twelve-year-old paper by my colleagues Ben Blencowe and Tim Hughes here at the Univesity of Toronto. The important point in their paper can be found in the last sentence of the abstract which says, "We conclude that, while there are bona fide new intergenic transcripts, their number and abundance is generally low in comparison to known exons, and the genome is not as pervasively transcribed as previously reported."
 * Their point is that most of these RNAs are associated with known genes and the amount of so-called 'dark matter' transcripts is small. Here's how they explain it in the discussion.
 * "Altogether, we propose that most of the dark matter transcriptome may result from the process of transcribing known genes. Pervasive transcription of intergenic regions as described in previous studies occurs at a significantly reduced level and is of a random character."
 * In other words, they are arguing AGAINST the idea that dark matter transcripts are important and refute junk DNA. Their paper was attacked by PROPONENTS of junk DNA for this very reason.
 * I have a blog post that discusses this controversy in case you are interested.
 * Pervasive Transcription
 * https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/08/pervasive-transcription.html
 * The statement that you want to retain in the old version of this article is extremely misleading because the source paper says something quite different. In addition to being misleading, the statement is not relevant. As I said above, his is not the place to bring up the debate over junk DNA.
 * From my perspective. Two of the unsourced statements that you want to retain are incorrect and/or irrelevant. The third one misrepresents the source and it's also irrelevant.
 * I believe that I have the knowledge and expertise to recognize incorrect or misleading unsourced statements and the knowledge and expertise to recognize whether sources are being quoted correctly.
 * If you don't agree, then feel free to advance your scientific arguments in favor of retaining the old version of this article. Genome42 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS. Thoroughly. I am not interested in reading your blog. It is not a reliable source. You still haven't given a single reason based in our existing policies or guidelines why this information is incorrect nor have you given sources that support your statements. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have managed to find two recent peer-reviewed journal articles (in Gene and the International Journal of Molecular Sciences) which disproves a lot (but not all!) of what you're saying — this is clearly a topic with differing opinions, and unfortunately one where journal articles are written by theory proponents on both sides. Perhaps a fair compromise here would be to expand (without the wholesale deletion of content) on the lead of the article, highlighting that although some research states this, others have provided reasonable refutations? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please collaborate with me and provide more specific information. Which of the statements in the old version of the intergenic region article have been proved by the papers you found? Do you intend to add them as sources for the claims that are made in that old version or should those claims just be preserved even though there are no sources to back them up?
 * And please provide a justification for debating this controversy in an article on intergenic regions. Genome42 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't personally have the time to have an in-depth debate on the merits of multiple peer reviewed, conflicting articles — my university days are behind me, and I never did enjoy debates and defenses :) I'm just trying to find a reasonable compromise which doesn't involve discounting older, yet still highly cited, research. Perhaps some of the subject matter experts at WikiProject Molecular Biology can chime in? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've left a message at their noticeboard — I appreciate everyone taking a step back and trying to discuss this. I know that can be difficult when the answers seem obvious to you, but I do hope you can appreciate the state the project would be in if we let everyone make edits they're "sure" are correct — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you have time to engage in a superficial debate in order to support Praxidicae and to back up your accusation that I'm engaging in an edit war. It's unfortunate that you don't have time to engage in a genuine scientific collaboration in order to resolve this issue.
 * You found two papers that mention 'dark matter' but that's not the issue. I'm well aware of the fact that some people would like to dismiss what we know about genomes by calling it dark matter. The sentence in the old version talked about 'transcripts' implying that they refuted junk DNA. That's a gross misrepresentation of the source that was quoted.

 * It's interesting that you are now calling on experts to resolve this issue. I hope you can appreciate how frustrating it is, as an expert, to be challenged by people who clearly state that they are not knowledgeable but still want to censure my edits. I don't have to imagine what state the Wikipedia project would be in if this continues because that's exactly the state we're in. You and Praxidicae (and other like-minded editors) are making it extremely difficult for genuine scientists to fix Wikipedia because you are "sure" you are correct and the experts are wrong. Genome42 (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you should probably re-read my message to you 😌 I'm certainly not sure I'm right, which is why I've highlighted that there are conflicting articles and tried to get you to collaborate and compromise. I'm "challenging" you as an editor, and am holding you to the same standards as any other editor. So far I've seen little evidence that you're a subject expert — in fact, I'd expect a supposed "retired professor" to know how debate and provide scholarly sources to their claims, without a MSc having to repeatedly prompt them. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I must have missed the message where you supplied evidence of conflicting articles from reliable scientific sources that support the following statements.
 * "Occasionally some intergenic DNA acts to control genes nearby, but most of it has no currently known function."
 * "It is one of the DNA sequences sometimes referred to as junk DNA ..."
 * "... though it is only one phenomenon labeled such and in scientific studies today, the term is less used."
 * "Historically intergenic regions have sometimes been called junk DNA suggesting that they have no function."
 * Perhaps it was accidentally deleted? Could you re-post it?
 * I also missed the part where you defended the relevance of the material I deleted and why it needed to be in a short article on intergenic DNA.
 * It's hard to collaborate and compromise when no one will discuss the main issues that I raise. Why do you insist on rejecting my edits and defending unsupported (and incorrect) statements that have no sources? That seems hypocritical to me but perhaps there's another agenda that I'm unaware of.
 * If you think this part is difficult, just wait till I get to the part under "Properties" that claims an increase in the number of human genes from 32,000 to 60,000! You must know that such a claim is highly controversial (and incorrect) but none of the standard Wikipedia editors challenged it and demanded that the other side be presented in the interests of fairness.
 * Isn't that strange? Genome42 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, what is strange here is your inability to produce a single reliable source. Until you do that, this conversation is pointless and your continued gaslighting and sealioning isn't going to improve the article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be kind enough to describe what reliable sources I need to support the version that I posted (and you deleted)?
 * Or, are you suggesting that I provide reliable sources to refute incorrect and unsupported claims that are made in the version you prefer? How do I do that? In scientific discussions, the burden of proof is on someone making a claim, not on someone who challenges it.

 * Genome42 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RS has a great explanation of what is expected. I suggest you read it, as I suggested previously. You haven't shown what claims are unsupported by the sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. What sources support the claim that, "Historically intergenic regions have sometimes been called junk DNA suggesting that they have no function"? Genome42 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Functions
Statements in the current (Aug. 17, 2022) version are in quotation marks.

"Historically intergenic regions have sometimes been called junk DNA suggesting that they have no function. However, it has been known for a long time that these regions do contain functionally important elements such ..."

What's the point? Can both of these sentences be true? No, there are no knowledgeable experts who ever said that all intergenic regions are junk DNA. The mainstream science viewpoint is that there are all kinds of functional elements in intergenic regions and that's been known for more than 60 years.

The rest of the 'Functions' section describes some of the known functional elements in the part of the genome that lies outside of genes. But this is not the place to describe those elements. Besides, some of the most important ones ones are missing. Let's leave that description to other Wikipedia articles that can do a better job.

I propose to delete (again) the entire section unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep it. Genome42 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Figures
This figure is not helpful. What is a "gene cluster"?

Deleted. Genome42 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The human karyotype figure is not relevant to this topic. This article is not about the human genome - it addresses intergenic regions in all species.

The description is inaccurate because there are lots of genes and intergenic regions in both the lighter regions and the darker regions of the stained human chromsomes. Also, the images depicted are not very good cartoons of the actual G-banding as seen under the microscope.

Deleted. Genome42 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Intergenic region


text:
User:GRider/Schoolwatch/Impact

Does the Schoolwatch programme really work? See below.

Perins School

 * 17:32, 20 Apr 2005, Before Schoolwatch
 * 17:36, 20 Apr 2005, Added to Schoolwatch
 * 18:37, 25 Apr 2005, After Schoolwatch
 * (Impact!)

Bishop Wordsworths School

 * 23:04, 20 Apr 2005, Before Schoolwatch
 * 23:09, 20 Apr 2005, Added to Schoolwatch
 * 03:37, 25 Apr 2005, After Schoolwatch
 * (Impact!)

Clover Park High School

 * 18:18, 21 Apr 2005, Before Schoolwatch
 * 18:35, 21 Apr 2005, Added to Schoolwatch
 * 16:06, 25 Apr 2005, After Schoolwatch
 * (Impact!)

 Improvement results are recorded beginning with the first edit immediately before being added to Schoolwatch up until it is moved to the Schoolwatch archives.

'Have a suggestion? Please leave a note on the Talk page!'

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:GRider/Schoolwatch/Impact


text: User talk:68.194.151.129

title: User talk:68.194.151.129


text:
Jesper Blomqvist

Lars Jesper Blomqvist (born 5 February 1974) is a Swedish former professional footballer who played as a left midfielder.

Most recently he was the playing assistant manager of Superettan side Hammarby from December 2009 to November 2010. He played at IFK Göteborg, where he won four straight Allsvenskan league titles between 1993 and 1996, and Manchester United, where he was part of the team that won the treble in 1999, consisting of the Premier League, FA Cup and UEFA Champions League. He returned to Swedish football in 2003 with Djurgården, where he won his final Allsvenskan title, before initially retiring in 2005. An injury crisis prompted a playing return for Enköping in 2008.

A full international between 1994 and 2002, Blomqvist won 30 caps for the Sweden national team and helped them to third place at the 1994 FIFA World Cup in the United States.

Swedish football
After an early spell at Tavelsjö, Blomqvist signed for then recently formed Umeå in 1992. In the spring portion of his first season for the club, he helped them to the Division 2 Norra Norrland title, promoting the club to Division 1 Norra for the autumn. At the time this was the second tier of Swedish football. Subsequently, he signed for IFK Göteborg on 11 September 1993. Blomqvist played a part in the club's Allsvenskan win that year. He scored eight goals in 24 league appearances en route to the league title in 1994. Furthermore, he played a part in Sweden's advance to the semi-finals of the World Cup and scored in the club's 3–1 win over Manchester United in the Champions League. This performance caught the eye of United manager Alex Ferguson and helped the team qualify for the quarter-finals of the tournament. Another title followed in 1995, with Blomqvist's goal against Helsingborgs, when he performed a variant of the Pelé runaround move, voted goal of the season. In his last season for Göteborg, he played against former club Umeå, who had reached the Allsvenskan for the first time in their history. In 1996, Blomqvist was voted Fan's Player of the Year and Midfielder of the Year. At the end of the 1996 season, he signed for newly crowned Serie A champions Milan.

Serie A
In his first season of Italian football, Milan failed to win a trophy, and Blomqvist often sat on the bench. He nearly decided against going to Old Trafford because he did not want a repeat of this season. The defending champions had an equally disappointing season, finishing eleventh in Serie A and failing to qualify for European football. Blomqvist was subsequently sold to Serie A runners up Parma in the summer of 1997. Blomqvist enjoyed more regular football, although the club finished sixth in the league and missed out on the knockout stages of the Champions League. The Swede's sole league goal for the club was scored in a 4–0 win over Napoli at Stadio San Paolo.

Premier League
Manchester United purchased Blomqvist as a backup to Ryan Giggs in the early stages of the 1998-99 season, for a fee of £4.4 million, three years after manager Alex Ferguson had first attempted to sign him for United from IFK Gothenburg. He featured in enough games to win a Premier League winner's medal in the 1999 season, scoring his only goal for the club in a 4–1 away win against Everton. He received an FA Cup winners medal despite being an unused substitute in the final. He did, however, start against Bayern Munich in the Champions League final. He came close to scoring before eventually being replaced by Teddy Sheringham, who later scored a late equaliser after Bayern's early goal. United went on to win the match 2–1.

Due to a serious knee injury suffered soon after the Champions League final, Blomqvist did not play football in the next two seasons, which resulted in Manchester United deciding not to renew his contract (During his time out, due to this injury, he did media work for MUTV, United's in-house television channel, and presented his own cookery show called "Cooking With Jesper"). He remained on a week-to-week deal at Old Trafford before finally leaving when Ferguson persuaded Everton manager Walter Smith to offer the Swedish international a short term contract at Goodison Park, from November 2001 until the end of the season. Blomqvist played on the wings opposite compatriot Niclas Alexandersson, and scored his first goal for Everton against Sunderland in January 2002. Injury problems persisted, however, and new manager David Moyes allowed him to leave the club in June 2002. He had a trial at Middlesbrough, but was unhappy with the club's handling of the situation, labelling it "a bit unprofessional". Instead he signed for Alan Curbishley's Charlton Athletic on a free transfer. His spell at The Valley was even briefer, and he made just three league appearances for the South London side before calling time on an injury-hit five seasons in England.

Return to Sweden
Again struggling with injury, Blomqvist returned to his native Sweden after only four games with Charlton. He signed on a short term deal with Djurgården. This proved unpopular among supporters of IFK Göteborg, who labelled him "Judas". Göteborg fans considered the decision to join Djurgården instead of them a betrayal. Blomqvist played a part as the side became Swedish champions that year. Injury problems, however, restricted him to only nine league appearances. As during the stint with Manchester United, he remained at the club for another two seasons, before finally deciding to retire due to injury in 2005.

Blomqvist joined Enköpings as a coach in 2008 and went on to make a playing return in the Superettan, the second tier of Swedish football. A shortage of players at the club due to injury forced Blomqvist's playing return. The player shortage was highlighted when Blomqvist was sent off in his second game for the club. This resulted in a suspension for Blomqvist, and Enköping only having fifteen players available for the following match. On 15 September 2008, he scored his first professional goal in five years in a 1–0 win against IK Sirius. In total, he made ten Superettan appearances, but was unable to save Enköping from relegation to Division 1 for the 2009 season. He left Enköping after the season and later signed a contract with newly relegated Hammarby as assistant manager to Michael Borgqvist.

In 2010, Blomqvist played again, coming on as a substitute in the 85th minute for Hammarby against Trelleborg in the Swedish Cup, being one of very few coaches actually playing a game for their team. After a rough period at the club, he left Hammarby in a mutual consent in November 2010.

In 2012, Blomqvist effectively retired as a footballer by focusing on his civilian career. He did this by initiating studies in commerce.

International career
Blomqvist was part of the bronze medal-winning Swedish national team at the 1994 FIFA World Cup. He gained his first international cap against Colombia in 1994. His only World Cup match in the starting eleven came against Cameroon, although he also replaced Henrik Larsson in the second half of a draw against eventual champions Brazil. Each member of the squad was awarded a Svenska Dagbladet Gold Medal in recognition of their third place in the tournament. Blomqvist was also considered for the 2002 FIFA World Cup squad. In total, Blomqvist has made 30 appearances for his country, without scoring.

Personal life
Blomqvist was born and raised in Tavelsjö, in the Umeå Municipality of Sweden. He currently resides in Sweden, although he has also purchased property in Croatia. After officially retiring in 2005, he became a pundit (football expert) for Swedish television station TV4. Blomqvist was the victim of an assault during a visit to his hometown Umeå in September 2006, when he was struck twice across the face. His attacker was prosecuted for the incident.

Blomqvist and his ex-wife Pauline have a son born in 2012. They had divorced in 2016 but remain friends and share custody of their son.

Honours
Umeå
 * Division 2 Norra Norrland: 1992

IFK Göteborg
 * Allsvenskan: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996

Manchester United
 * Premier League: 1998–99
 * FA Cup: 1998–99
 * UEFA Champions League: 1998–99

Djurgården
 * Allsvenskan: 2003

Sweden
 * FIFA World Cup third place: 1994

Individual
 * Årets komet: 1994
 * Swedish Goal of the Year: 1995
 * Folkets lirare: 1996
 * Swedish Midfielder of the Year: 1996

title: Jesper Blomqvist


text: Talk:Phosphorylase

title: Talk:Phosphorylase


text: Talk:Polyelectronic atoms

title: Talk:Polyelectronic atoms


text:
User talk:Rezwan

WikiProject Bangladesh
Hi,

Welcome to the WikiProject Bangladesh. As you may have read, this Project's key goal is to assume removal of POV from all articles written about Bangladesh or Bangladeshis. We also intend to complete the incomplete stubs and add several more new articles on important issues. If you create a new article on Bangladesh and leave it as a stub, please use tag to the article so that other interested Wikipedians can work on it. Have fun helping Wikipedia out, in general, and WP Bangladesh, in particular.

Be bold!

Urnonav 00:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting for Biography collaboration of the week
Hi, the article Sheikh Hasina has been nominated for voting at "Biography collaboration of the week". What this will do is that for a week, people of the team would contribute to make the article enriched, balanced and complete. Since this is an article about a Bangladeshi politician and a rich article would promote Bangladesh more, I think regardless of political beliefs we can vote for it. Even if you are opposed to her political ideology, you can be sure that both her positive and negative sides would be presented in a Collaboration of the week article. Please vote at Biography Collaboration of the Week by signing your name with # ~. Thanks.

Districts of Bangladesh
Please check out task 6 and 7 on the Bangladesh Project page. Help us out if you have time. Thanks. -- Urnonav 9 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

 * Ok, I finished creating articles on all 64 districts, added a navigation template to almost all, and have inserted the standard sections to most of them. Now is the time for some other volunteers to insert information into them, may be taking stats/info from Banglapedia and paraphrasing that. You can start by taking over any articles from the nav template at Template:Subdivisions of Bangladesh. --Ragib 06:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Bangladesh portal
Hi, I'd like to draw your attention to Bangladesh portal. I have tried to address the concerns in earlier peer review and checked the portal against Featured portal criteria. Based on this I think it is proper time to push for Featured Portal status for Bangladesh Portal, which will be an important milestone for WikiProject Bangladesh. But to achieve this I need help from you. Please participate in the on-going discussion on the talk page and give me your valuable inputs.-Arman Aziz 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Bakarkhani.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bakarkhani.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 13:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rezwan


text: Talk:Trellis

title: Talk:Trellis


text:
Talk:Tinsel

PVC tinsel?
PVC is far too soft for tinsel. Most tinsel would be made from some kind of polyester film, usually polyethylene terephthalate, which has much higher heat resistance, better rigidity and far higher tensile strength (PVC stretches at the thickness needed for tinsel).

71.241.74.20 (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Double content
The following sentences are twice in the article : "Modern tinsel was invented in Nuremberg, Germany, in 1610, and was originally made of shredded silver." "Tinsel was invented in Nuremberg around 1610.[1] Tinsel was originally made from extruded strands of silver."

To me, the whole article looks a little like being just a copy-paste of different sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.75.31 (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article used to be split into sections, hence the repetition. I've restored the lost "history" header. --McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Tinsel was invented in 1610. That would be in the seventeenth century. If true, how could tinsel be used prior to the sixteenth century for anything? Is it meant that the invention was the use of it on Christmas trees and that between 1500 and 1610 it was definitely not used at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealtram (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Tinsel vs Garland
I'm fairly certain the two are different things. Tinsel being individual strands of metallic fiber.

Garland being whatever material chosen bunched up along a string.

Some tinsel may be attatched to a string for ease of decoration... but it all still faces the same direction... (like a hula skirt) unlike garland which manifests as more of a rope-like consistency.

The article has an image of what would without a doubt be classified as a garland, identifying it as tinsel, and I am forced to disagree.

71.194.207.38 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tinsel


text: Talk:Theater (military)

title: Talk:Theater (military)


text:
Talk:Death of Malice Green

Untitled
This could be taken out of context "Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young came to office shortly after the 1967 Detroit riots" Actually, he became mayor in 1973, which in my definition isn't shortly.

Lots of unsupported crap in this article.

Gomektampa, Care to explain?
Since you're a newb on here, let me explain -- if you see "lots of unsupported crap" then you are the one that changes it. You document as best you can, and others collaborate on the effort.

When I started editing, the article was horrible. For starters, it was horribly slanted -- it might as well have been from a Black Panthers brochure. I re-wrote it, and others chimed in. Together, we thought we had it about right, which is remarkable given all the twists and turns in the case, not to mention the emotions involved.

So, here's my call-out: If you see "crap" then you go ahead and fix stuff. Twohlford 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Edited to reflect reality
While it is clear that there were serious questions about the initial convictions of the police officers, they were both convicted in new trials for Green's death. The article was laughably biased with phrases such as "crack head" and statements about "2nd reports" that were intentionally misleading. It has been edited to reflect the controversy more accurately. It was stunning how biased the article was before.

I wish you would've signed your rant so I could respond to it.Twohlford (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about the "Update" and court documents?
There are two postings of the court opinion from March of 2003 when the conviction of Nevers was originally overturned, however, both appear to be out of place and unnecessary since the overturning of the verdict is mentioned in the Appeals section; in fact, in the second posting of the court's opinion, it is posted in a section that has nothing to do with the appeal. I am not removing the postings since it is obvious Twohlford has done a lot of work on this article and may have posted these for a legitimate reason, however I wanted to point them out in case he did NOT post them, because while informative, as they are currently posted, they do not appear to follow Wiki standards and should be removed. 72.185.43.62 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do it
I didn't add the legal document stuff. I would never add that stuff verbatim like that. In fact, I removed both quotations, which means I've now effectively removed all of the material added by that poster (see earlier deletion). If that person would care to identify themself I'm sure we can discuss ways to make this article better.Twohlford (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Tasers
I removed the reference to Tasers not being available in 1992. They were indeed available and one, in fact, was used on Rodney King in the March, 1991 incident involving him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.83.2 (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dedication from Underground Resistance
Hi, you could mention this release: http://www.discogs.com/Underground-Resistance-Message-To-The-Majors/release/9106 --78.48.34.145 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (Gabbahead)

Clarity
First, where are all the citations? Nothing discussing the legal proceedings is cited. Secondly, the reason for the Appeals decision to grant Budzyn a new trial? "Mostly on the grounds of the showing of Malcolm X" is not a legal reason. Did the court find that the officer wasn't given a fair trial? Also, under what circumstances was the jury shown the film Malcolm X? Who exactly "showed" the jury the film? All of this is unclear. Also, the colloquial language in the article should be eliminated, i.e. "the Supreme Court 'let it stand'", and "the jury 'was shown'". Nothing in this article is supported by appropriate citations. --Zdespart (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of blows
Why does the introduction say that he hit him "14 times", when later on it first says that while the coronoer initially claimed 14 wounds, he later reduced it to seven. Did we just pick the bigger number because it sounds better? I would say we should go with the smaller number, since it's more likely accurate. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Death of Malice Green


text: Talk:Subsonic ammunition

title: Talk:Subsonic ammunition