The discussion you started on Reliable sources Noticeboard has already been archived, so that discussion is over. The previous consensus against the use of DNA Tribes as a reliable source stills stands. 

 DNA Tribes is not acceptable source per previous consensus, until that changes it is not supposed to be included in this or any other Wikipedia article, regardless of any ongoing discussion. So please stop inserting the information from the DNA tribes until you get consensus that it is a reliable source to include in this and other articles. 
 Also you seem to be doing some POV pushing by continually inserting this material after you have been told more than once that DNA Tribes is not a reliable/acceptable source.  That you dispute this does not give you cart blanche to insert it in to articles, only when you have consensus  that has overturned the previous consensus about its reliability, are you then free to insert the material from DNA Tribes it into the article.  The wording of you contribution to the page is also highly problematic, most of the content comes from the DNA Tribes analysis and not the JAMA studies, but no mention of this is giving in the article.  The first sentence is also very problematic: 

 “Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies of a New Kingdom dynasty have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Amarna(from 1353 B.C.) and Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) lineages” 

 What do you mean by Sub-Saharan origins, because it seems you are misrepresenting what the DNA Tribes articles are saying?  
 “Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent in modern populations in several parts of Africa. These results are based on the 8 STR markers for which these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis for these individuals who lived in Egypt during the Amarna period of the 14th century BCE. 

 Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry, geographical analysis suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies. If new data become available in the future, it might become possible to further clarify results and shed new light on the relationships of ancient individuals to modern populations.” http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf 

 “These results indicate that both Ramesses III and Unknown Man E (possibly his son Pentawer) shared an ancestral component with present day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This preliminary analysis based on eight STR markers does not identify the percentages of Sub-Saharan African ancestry for these ancient individuals. This preliminary analysis also does not exclude additional ancestral components (such as Near Eastern or Mediterranean related components) for these ancient pharaonic Egyptians. 

 In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express population changes in Africa after the time of Ramesses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day populations of Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links with ancient populations (formerly living closer to New Kingdom Egypt) that have expanded southwards in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years (see Figure 1).” http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf 

 They make no claims or conclusions about any pharaohs being of Sub-Saharan origins, what they do say is that the majority of DNA linages tested from the 8 STR markers used in the published JAMA studies correlated mostly with modern Sub-Saharan African populations.  But they make it clear that this says nothing about the total percentages of the Sub-African ancestral component or any others of the tested individuals   

 Nothing from either the published JAMA studies or the DNA Tribes publications directly supports your statement about “confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharaohs”.