User talk:Bejnar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bottom of Page

Things to remember

On terminology[edit]

I have noticed some of your constructive posts in some talk pages and would appreciate your view on a question I posted here. Thanks. --Caballero//Historiador 13:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Old Norsk in Sicily[edit]

This is the English wikipedia, not Italian. The editwar are clarified in discussions and not with external warnings. "Be careful, do not trust anyone." Vituzzu and Shivanarayana are two famous users linked to extreme political parties (the Lega Nord) and Vituzzu does everything to disguise (speaking in Sicilian) Attention, always check their contributions. These users hate southern Italy and its inhabitants;They are racist and xenophobic.-- (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Cesar River, Chile[edit]

You introduced the idea in 2008. Google does not confirm the existence of such river. There is probably Laguna Cesar.Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

See revised article: Cesar River, Chile and citation there. Google maps shows the river here. --Bejnar (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on sources[edit]

At a talk page I wrote "sources must discuss the subject of the article" and you replied "Not entirely true; sources must support the statements made, and conclusions need to be conclusions of the cited sources in order to avoid synthesis or original research." The problem is that I have seen numerous instances of editors adding sourced material that doesn't mention the subject of the article and while they are obviously making a point not in the sources, they aren't drawing conclusions, but writing in such a way that readers will draw conclusions. If you'd like to discuss this would you ping me please? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I found your original phraseology a bit too restricting. I do agree that it can be considered synthesis where something (something less than obvious) is implied by using a citation that correctly makes the point cited for, but does not mention the subject of the article; however, I see that setting the background facts for a topic can be done without the author of the source having even considered the topic in question. Examples would be things like, "When his hometown of Stettin was overrun by the Red Army [citing to a source that doesn't mention him], he was serving on the Western front under General Foertsch and was subsequently interred in the Rheinwiesenlager.[citing source that does mention him]" or "Early studies of stone-age man in the Pyrenees focused primarily on cave deposits [citing to a source that expressly concludes that, but one that doesn't mention mesolithic pottery], and it wasn't until Santonja investigated the alluvial deposits in the Meseta Central that mesolithic pottery entered the picture.[citing a source for the first discovery of Iberian mesolithic pottery, but not mentioning the previous emphasis just on caves]." Another example would be a biographical article where the individual came from Pomerania, but source A only says that he came from Stettin, it seems entirely resonable to use another source (B) that says that Stettin was a major industrial center in Pomerania even though source B doesn't mention the article's topic. --Bejnar (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The example I have in mind is the article on the Black Egyptian Hypothesis. There's an article in the BMJ about Ramesses III written with the objective " To investigate the true character of the harem conspiracy described in the Judicial Papyrus of Turin and determine whether Ramesses III was indeed killed." It mentions a haplotype found in his mummy and another one and concludes the two are related. It doesn't say anything about the race of Egyptians, their origin, etc. But there are continued attempts by socks and others to add it to the article, sometimes with a statement that it's a subSaharan haplotype. Which is true but not all the truth, and was also found in a set of Norse Viking skeletons from Northern England. So a reliable source, but only for the purpose it was written for. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I appreciate that you were striving for brevity as well as clarity in your example, but I may have missed the twist in your example. It is not sufficient to dismiss a source because it was not written "for the purpose of proving or disproving an hypothesis". The point is whether it is used inappropriately to suggest something that is not only not stated, but subject to question. I am not a geneticist, but whether or not a particular haplotype is substantially present in subSaharan populations and is substantially absent elsewhere would seem to be a factual issue, and not dependent upon what article it was being used in. If the twist here is that the second part of the equation (substantially absent elsewhere) is not addressed, then the statement should be removed not because of any infirmity in the source with regard to the existence of the haplotype in the mummy, but because the "fact" (present in subSaharan populations and substantially absent elsewhere) is not established by sources. --Bejnar (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
So far as I recall, consensus has always been about cherry-picking raw data from genetic reports, with the emphasis being on sticking to the analysis/conclusions sections. Even the use of abstracts has been criticised at times as they aren't always written by the authors of the report. What you are talking about sounds very much like WP:SYNTHESIS, combining two or more sources to make an argument. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. Doug Weller talk 06:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: It well may be WP:SYNTHESIS in your example, but the use of sources that do not mention the topic is not the problem, although it may be an indicator of where problems in WP:SYNTHESIS exist. --Bejnar (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I take your point. I probably only notice this where it's clearly synthesis and don't notice it other wise. I do have a lot of fringe stuff on my watchlist. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Tina Dabi page is not just about one event[edit]

Tina Dabi page is not just about one event. There are many similar pages like this but once there are ample third party credible sources , it can be created. Same have been done for many new cricketers, players whose pages have been created. Apart from being UPSC topper, its the hard working and inspiring story of Tina of being an incredible Dalit girl which is the main factor for creating the page.--Juneymb (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Tina Dabi[edit]

Hello, Bejnar,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Tina Dabi should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Dabi .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Chris Troutman (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Parodi, Beed[edit]

Dead link.Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: Thanks. Fixed. --Bejnar (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you know the Marathi name?Xx236 (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
पारोडी --Bejnar (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Arumeru District[edit]

My dear Bejnar hi!
Please see Talk:Arumeru District. With kindest regards! --Aristo Class (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Bejnar. 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)

Reference errors on 24 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed --Bejnar (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Hello Bejnar, I just found that many articles related to settlements in India were lacking of a language code. So that I just added the particular language code to those articles. Next time I will be more responsible and productive in such cases. Thank you for your guidance.Jayabilla (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)