Jump to content

User talk:Bejnar/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Archive 13

January 2014 - June 2014


Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86#Question about bot edits

Could you move your, "I find that "Staff" is entirely appropriate..." comment up a section. Your comment is in the section about the bot. It would better if it was in the section on if docs should be changed so author=staff is valid. Bgwhite (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sagara

Ebon

Hi, i just came across the beginning edit-war about DeMolays' Ebon via the dab Ebon, and as far as i can tell there IS a degree "Ebon". But since you and the ip seem to be more knowledgeable about that subject i'll certainly not get involved. Anyway, why should the mention of the degree be deleted from the dab page Ebon? I see no reason the existence of this degree and the link to DeMolay International should be omitted even if the artcile doesn't mention it (anymore). Regards, Gott (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Capsus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * ''Capsus brevicollis'' <small>Meyer-Dur, 1843</small> junior synonym of ''[[Adelphocoris lineolatus <small>(Goeze, 1778)</small>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sangarius (genus) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • designation of types|journal=Australian Journal of Zoology|series=Supplementary Series number 22)|volume=34|pages=1–60|doi=10.1071/AJZS034}}</ref> The [[type species]] is ''[[Sangarius

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tarnished plant bug may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • various [[entomopathogenic fungus|entomopathogenic fungi]] for [[pathogenicity]] against TPB.<ref>{{Cite journal|author=Liu, Houping; Skinner, Maragret; Parker, Bruce L. and Brownbridge, Michael|year=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Orthotylus viridinervis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 20140126090248/http://research.amnh.org/pbi/library/0337.pdf|archivedate=26 January 2014|deadurl=no}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bill de Blasio

Thanks for the message. I figured that the statement (as amended) was backed up by references two and three. I don't think it was necessary to directly cite both clauses of the sentence but your edit has made it pretty clear which sources back each claim. Hack (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Cabo Verde

Cabo Verde is now used throughout all official instances (UN, US, ...): please refer to CIA World Factbook and BGN (NGA). Therefore this name should be reflected in all articles concerning this country similar to entries about Cote D'Ivoire! --BeerBuildsBetterBodies (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 January

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) 00:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Purana (insect), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Opercula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

The African Union Barnstar of National Merit
For your edits on Constitution of Tunisia, and the high quality of work you do on a wide variety of subjects in general, I hereby award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work! --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
In case you forgot, the edits in question were done September 30-October 1 of last year. I noticed them because the article is heading to the mainpage today as an ITN item. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Saraswati Samman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Tamil, Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali, Oriya and Punjabi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zou language, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Zo and Kuki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Makara Sankranthi

Discussion moved to Talk:Makar Sankranti#Title change.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parapetí River, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cordillera Province and Lagunillas Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Municipalities of Algeria

Your move some years ago had been reverted. But it was the only that made sense to me, since Arabic and not French is the official language in Algeria. The same reasoning was used for my proposal, see: Talk:Communes_of_Algeria#Requested_move_2. Even statoids.com uses "municipality". Androoox (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ghodbunder Fort may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • cms_page.asp?pageid=1321|archivedate=14 October 2007|deadurl=no}}</ref> Following its capture, [[Sambhaji] ordered the strengthen of the fortifications, at which time the tower was built.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hindu astrology

My apology on that revert. I was looking at the source and assumed you had stated that "astrology is science" instead of as part of a reference. I was getting accustomed to people removing the science section so often. Fortunately, my blunder was quickly reverted. Again, my apology. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Opposed nomination

Please explain this edit. Use {{Ping}} with my username ({{Ping|Koavf}}) so I'll see it. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Koavf: In general the Wikipedia's policy is to avoid the use of abbreviations. As it says, we are not limited by paper and type costs. For those not in-the-know, DMOZ is a meaningless abbreviation, while Open Directory Project at least gives an indication of what is meant. The MOS says Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper. So I thought that the proposed change ought, at a minimum, to have been discussed. --Bejnar (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:Proposal for updating WP:INDICSCRIPT

Dear User:Bejnar, thank you for your message on my talk page! I must apologize for replying so late as I was not around when you left it! I just looked at the discussion you pointed me to and see that it was prematurely closed. The user who left the conclusion there, however, did not do so accurately. Indeed, I was informed by an administrator that it is permissible to add Indic scripts to the infobox of geographical related articles. I certainly would prefer that Indic scripts would be restored to the lede of WP:India related articles, which is consistent with every single other WikiProject on this encyclopedia. However, I will abide by the current policy of only adding them to the infobox. If something like this comes up again though, please do let me know! Thanks again for thinking of me! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barotseland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Province (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities

Feel free to assist on the dispute as it does remain open. I forgot to remove that message on the article talk page after discovering that sufficient discussion had taken place on the user talk pages.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Core-and-veneer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mayan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN

You are clearly an editor wanting to do the right thing. I encourage you to continue on DRN.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN: Traditional Chinese Medicine

You wrote "You have asked for help resolving whether or to what extent "pseudoscience" should be mentioned in the lead (lede)."

The issue is the specific wording and the placement of the text in the lede. See this version for the correct placement of the text.
With an eye to the Chinese market, pharmaceutical companies have explored the potential for creating new drugs from traditional remedies.[9] Successful results have however been scarce: artemisinin, for example, which is an effective treatment for malaria, was fished out of a herb traditionally used to treat fever.[9] Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[9]
This specific information was a summary of the drug research. But part of the text was deleted and other text was inappropriately moved to a different part of the lede. Also, it is OR to claim it was extracted from a herb traditionally used to treat fever. The source does not say it was "extracted". Now the lede does not follow the body because of the misplacement text. This edit also moved text to the wrong place in the lede while deleting part of the text the editor did not like. The blog was repeatedly removed but the editor will not stop restoring it. More background information can be found here. "It has been described" undermines the validity of word pseudoscience. The text in the lede that summarises drug research should be returned to the appropriate place in the lede. Moving the text around does not benefit the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Could you briefly answer the questions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine discussion? --Bejnar (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the answers to those questions. I just follow the sources and try to summarise the text in the lede. I tried to clarify the text in the lede but the edits by other editors made that text in the lede unclear and disorganized. The sentence should be changed to "The TCM theory and practice are...". QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Think about them, the purposes of the Wikipedia, and what you know of Wikipedia policies; maybe the answers will come. --Bejnar (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding the situation. This is not a content dispute. Adding OR to the lede and moving the text around to make it unclear to the reader is not a content dispute. See here and here. Look at this. What is this blog doing in the article? It is intentionally being used to undermine the text about pseudoscience. He repeatably restored the source against CON.[1][2][3][4][5]. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
If the question is the relative emphasis to give the disparaging term pseudoscience, that is a content dispute. If the dispute is about whether a source is reliable, that belongs at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Some might dispute calling entries at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ a blog, since it has an editorial board of physicians. The article you mentioned is in fact by their senior editor. If the dispute is about wording that is a content dispute. I'm not sure what your point is. --Bejnar (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor claims: "the source's wording ("fraught") is vague and verging on opinion, which is why I suggest it should be attributed."
If the text is vague then improve the text. I don't see how if an editor thinks the source is verging on opinion matters to whether we should or should not assert the text. I thought when there is no serious dispute among sources we WP:ASSERT the text. If an editor has a personal disagreement with the source that is not relevant to how we present text on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Generally speaking, quotations are not appropriate in the lead; the function of the lead is to provide context and summarize the article. Quotations are very specific and generally belong, if at all, in the body of the article. However, when dealing with a controversial subject, quotations are appropriate where exactly what a person or article said may be in dispute. See Wikipedia:Quotations. Quotations may also be placed in footnotes, for example where the flow of the article would be broken by foreign text, but where the exact words are important. --Bejnar (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I explained the situation properly so I will try again.
Current wording without context: It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[3]
Previous wording with context: Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[9]
I agree it is not appropriate to add weasel words when there is no serious dispute.
We had text in the lede and body without quotations previously. I think the part "has been described" is also not encyclopedic.
The quotations "fraught with pseudoscience" is taken out of context form the source. I consider it WP:OR to misquote the source out of context.
Here is what the source said about the mechanism of action for most of its treatments: "So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies. Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies."[6]
I don't understand what is the next step at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine when these issues are not being fixed in both the acupuncture and TCM articles. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of DRN is not to edit the articles, it is to provide guidance in reaching a consensus. Then the articles can be edited in harmony with that consensus. As long as there is significant disputation that cannot occur. I asked the questions at DRN to help isolate the impetus behind the up-front contestation. Sometimes that can lead to a better understanding of each other's viewpoints and with the help of Wikipedia policies and guidelines the parties can reach consensus. Often DRN fails where the underlying problem is a difference in beliefs, not knowledge. For example one dispute boiled down to Party A believed in wholeness,that everything was ultimately one, and everything was related. Party B believed in diversity and variation, ultimately that no two things could ever be the same in any regard. Their beliefs influenced the way they interpreted sources so that they could never agree. By the way, taking a source quote out of context is not WP:OR, it is illogical, wrong, sloppy and inappropriate, but that is why there is an insistence on verifiability. I am not making a judgment about any particular instance as to whether it may be source quote taken out of context or not. --Bejnar (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like very specific guidance on improving the articles. I believe your responses are about DRN in general and not specific to my comments. QuackGuru (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The proper place to request specific guidance on improving the articles would be Wikipedia:Editor assistance. But if you are to participate in the DRN, then you should consider answering the questions that I asked. If you choose not to further participate, please consider WP:DISENGAGE. --Bejnar (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
In the beginning I thought the proper place to request assistance for improving the articles was DRN. If DRN is not the place then I don't see how DRN will help improve the text. I think you should let others know at DRN that to improve the text editors should go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
So far I don't see what you have done to move the conversation forward to improve the specific text. You are not making any specific suggestions at DRN to improve the text.
I don't see how DRN provides guidance in improving the article or reaching a consensus when you are not offering specific suggestions for the content.
I don't understand the benefit to answering the questions at DRN, especially when you are not giving specific guidance on improving the text. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
That is because before we can improve the text, we need to agree on the basis for that improvement. This came to DRN in an attempt to reach consensus for that basis. If there is no consensus, then one person's "improvement" is another person's POV. Yes, the ultimate goal is improving the text, but to get there, we need consensus and not edit-warring. In reaching consensus we all may learn something. The DRN FAQ puts it this way: Wikipedia only works when editors collaborate to form a consensus. Discussion is as important in the editing process as editing itself. While participation is not a requirement at DR/N, refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building. --Bejnar (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN issue

Hello! Sorry about the trouble at DRN; unfortunately, I don't really know how to fix this. I've had the same issue when working on a discussion - I've made multiple comments in some threads that continue to say "NeedAssist." Very odd; I'll see what I can do. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The mislabeling of open cases at DRN is an ongoing problem that has been discussed more than once on the DRN talk page [7] but Earwig who originated the bot has not responded to our request to change the bot's parameters.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your excellent work at WP:DRN. — Keithbob • Talk • 03:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN

I know I filed that claim. But I realised that the issue is not important as I had considered it before. As such my position on the view has changed, towards indifference, I'm not concerned so please may I excuse myself from the discusioin? I might disagree but I'm not concerned with the Islam article as it is. (Wiki id2(talk) 16:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC))

@Wiki id2: consider yourself excused. --Bejnar (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ghrelin

Thanks for the two pieces of good advice. I've been editing for a little over a month and never heard of third party. Where might I have learned that as a newbie?

Thanks.

IiKkEe (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN close

Re this closing: Unless there was some indication somewhere that the editor just mistakenly filed at DRN, intending to file at 3O, I'm not sure on what basis this was the wrong venue. Disputes with just 2 participants can go either place (and, indeed, can get a 3O from DRN, if that's what they want, though not vice versa). We're so overwhelmed at DRN right now — and thank you very, very, very, much for helping out — that closing it was probably a good thing to do, but it was kind of odd. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

asmallworld DRN

Hi, Bejnar. I've gathered from the DRN talkpage that the board is shortstaffed and short of time (and I gather it from the post above, too), and I'm sorry if I'm making trouble, but I was concerned when I saw that you opened the asmallworld discussion and then closed it after less than three hours, and after only one of the two involved users had posted. Surely both parties should have a chance to respond to your compromise suggestion? Checking User:IIIraute's contributions, I notice that when you posted on his page to alert him, he hadn't been editing for quite some time. When he came back online, the discussion was already closed. I don't know if there's a "normal" DRN time to leave discussion open, but three hours does seem extremely brief, considering people have real lives. Would you consider re-opening the discussion to give IIIraute a chance to have input in it? (I notice on his page that he seems dismayed to find it already closed.) Bishonen | talk 01:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen thanks for your continuing interest in this dispute. Please also look at my comments on this matter on my talk page [8]. While I agree that the DRN process was short, I think that Bejnar reached a compromise, neither I nor IIIraute are happy with the result, but in the end I think we should leave it to other editors to sort out and leave the current resolution per Bejnar, for some sense of finality. The result goes against my opinion, which is that asmallworld is not invitation only because it accepts applications, I am not sure what else IIIraute wants, anyway, since you seem interested in this Bishonen why don't you review the sources on the DRN and give your opinion? Though I am pretty sure your sympathies lie why with IIIraute, I will abide by whatever decision is deemed final. I think there should be closure on this issue, it seems straightforward to me based on [9] and [10]"Membership requires an invitation from an existing member or an approved membership application by our international committee of trustees." The OR in this sentence is very important. but like I said when I started the DR there should be a neutral third party that makes a decision on it. Bejnar did that, he had the links to review. He made a decision (which I generally do not agree with but will abide by) and now you and IIIraute are teaming up again to undo it, I don't particularly understand what else IIIraute wants from the result? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC))
@Mostlyoksorta: Despite your broad hints about my "sympathies", I assure you I would have "teamed up" just the same with you if you had been the user shut out from the lightning "discussion" section. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC).
@Bishonen: that is fine, as you can see from the discussion, here, on the DRN, on IIIraute's talk page, my talk page, and maybe elsewhere, this has been tirelessly discussed and has the final result is basically what IIIraute asked for, what else is there to discuss? Why can't the issue just be resolved? It is not as if Bejnar decided that I was correct and I am now protecting some sort of victory. I just want this debate over, and it is. Bejnar's wording (basically the same as IIIraute's) is used in the article and the lead sentence is staying as it is for the reason mentioned by Bejnar on IIIraute's talk page. What is the purpose of prolonging this discussion? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC))
@Bishonen: After reading the discussion and the request, the compromise seemed obvious. IIIraute was correct, but was giving it undue emphasis. Mostlyoksorta was focused on the the change, and not the meaning. When Mostlyoksorta agreed to the "compromise" which was basiccally IIIraute's position and main point, see IIIraute's statement of the case, there was no point in continuing, despite the fact that IIIraute did not get another bite of the apple. Since IIIraute got the rest of the apple in the compromise. It is not like there wasn't previous discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you really not think IIIraute should have some input on your compromise proposal before you close? I ask you to reconsider, not the proposal, but the close. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC).
@Bishonen: What is the point? See IIIraute's comments and my responses at User talk:IIIraute. --Bejnar (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Since Illraute doesn't want my on his talk page I will only respond here - [11] and [12] - with it's 'apply for membership' link and [13] are neither [WP:SYNTH] nor [WP:OR]. Bishonen or IIIraute can you explain to me why either of those company sourced websites is [WP:SYNTH] or [WP:OR]? Is this matter closed yet or will IIIraute continue to contest a closed DRN discussion that was decided 90% in his favor? Also, let me note I did not cite 'some facebook post' [14] I cited the company's own press release via facebook - the company itself does not contest it accepts membership applications it ACTUALLY ANNOUNCED THAT IT DOES [15]. This whole argument is really in bad faith, especially since the DRN is closed, was decided 90% in favor of IIIraute and he still continues to argue, this is disruptive and has nothing to do with the content of the article. If we are going to continue discussing a CLOSED DRN then I suggest we move to mediation on this issue. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC))
Your interpretation of the 'apply for membership' part of the website is original research, especially since the same company website 'literally' states that it is "invitation only" - this fact is also supported by several independent, reliable secondary sources. --IIIraute (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
IIIraute Serious question: can something be both 'applied for' and 'invitation only'? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC))
It doesn't contradict itself at all: "One must receive an invitation from an existing member, or an invitation from the governing board after filing an application to be considered for membership."

But much more important, this is not for us to evaluate. There are professional people, such as journalists, or book authors who already have done this evaluation for us, and have provided independent, reliable sources for use at the WP. --IIIraute (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't misquote the sources, it is misleading, the site actually says "Membership requires an invitation from an existing member or an approved membership application by our international committee of trustees."[16]. The language you quoted - the compromise by Bejnar, is not accurate, but it is a compromise. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC))
The ASMALLWOLD website literally states: "We are an international, invitation-only club"

One can apply - "to be considered" for invitation → "Access to ASMALLWORLD is for members only. Please complete the form below to be considered for membership. We will be in touch if your application is accepted."

Your personal interpretation of this is irrelevant.

This information has been evaluated by professional people, such as journalists, and book authors who have provided independent, reliable sources for use at the WP. Please follow WP:RS, and don't do any WP:OR and WP:SYNTH claims, and you will be on the safe side. --IIIraute (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • You see? A very good reason to keep the DRN open is that it's obviously not resolved, only now the discussion is taking place, in a very cumbersome way, on several different user talkpages. But I'm done. If you don't see it, Bejnar, then you don't. Bishonen | talk 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC).
actually I consider this matter to be closed, I just don't want it 'relitigated' by the other user without having my opinion heard.(Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC))
DRN is an informal place to resolve content disputes - a "content dispute" in which I was not allowed to participate, I do not deem to be valid. --IIIraute (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure you can unilaterally 'deem' anything, you can abide by the decision or not abide by it. Though as you well know failure to abide by consensus decisions has consequences [17]. Warum magst du immer zu Streiten? Man soll nur suchen Wikipedia zu verbessern, nicht zu kampfen. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC))

I've been asked to consider evaluating whether the closing of the case was proper, but I'd just as soon not do that. I will comment however that there seems to be some implication or misunderstanding here that the DRN case is somehow binding on the parties to the dispute. It is not. As it says at the top of the DRN page:

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.

Heck, even if there had been a clear settlement reached at DRN and the agreement of the parties had been signed in their Wikiblood it wouldn't have been binding on them and 30 seconds later either of them could have abrogated that agreement and resumed the combat. (Which is not to say that the community could not look askance at such behavior as a conduct matter, but that's a different issue.) If consensus was not reached at DRN, then move on to some other form of dispute resolution: 3O, MEDCOM, or RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirection does not require AfD

As per title. There is only enough material for one article, the concept has no currency other than from its proponent. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, @JzG:, redirect does not require Afd, but with the request of two editors for discussion there, it would be appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
This seems like process wonkery to me. I will endeavour not to care. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cabinet of Libya may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • agency=Reuters}}</ref><br/>Mohammed Khalifa Al Sheikh<br/>(26 May 2013 &ndash; new government))<ref name=times26may />

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mehdya may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • El Cristo de Medinaceli: Jesús esclavo|date=7 March 1958 |newspaper=[[ABC (Spain)|ABC]] |location=[[Madrid, Spain|url=http:// hemeroteca.abc.es/nav/Navigate.exe/hemeroteca/sevilla/abc.sevilla/1958/03/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leslie Andrew Garay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dodson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Because you are a man of patience

The Barnstar of Diligence
For having the patience to not only share views and differing opinions on the obscure topic of hadith authentication (it's obscure even among Muslims), but also to share those views with someone as long-winded and occasionally annoying as me. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Dalmatia

Dear user, there is an ongoing RfC on Dalmatia. You might want to participate. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you have participated in. You are not required to participate, but you are invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Dalmatia".--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution and your suggestion. Clearly I will take a distance from this discussion. And when this RfC is closed I will take a looooong break from Adriatic articles. The sad thing is that despite an RfC is in progress, Director is continuing to edit the article his way and to push even more then undue link between the historical boundaries of Dalmatia and the administrative borders of then 4 southernmost counties of Croatia. I know that sometime I did not follow the rules of Wikipedia and certainly I have to learn a lot, but I would never continue to edit an article with a RfC in progress (and even less if my POV was not shared by the other participants to the RfC). --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oulad Ben Hammadi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sidi Slimane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

In recognition of your firm but flexible approach and contributions at WP:DRN. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Academi

Hi, Bejnar. In December 2011 you participated at the discussion which resulted with moving the Academi article to its current title. There is a ongoing RfC which is related to that move. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Post keep discussion

Before we get started, I have a suggestion for Quran and Sunnah and I wanted to run it by you before opening it up for general comment on the article's talk page. I want to suggest that the name be changed to "Hadith of the Quran and Sunnah" so readers understand this isn't about the Quran and Sunnah themselves. For example, we have the Hadith of the Twelve Successors article but not an article called "The Twelve Successors" as it's about the hadith and not the twelve people themselves. What do you think? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: That sounds like an excellent idea. I cannot imagine an objection, but let's float it properly. Do want to do the honours, or shall I? My trip has been delayed. --Bejnar (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually nominating another article for deletion in a second window right now, would you be able to open - I think in this case an RoC is what we need? Or is there a separate discussion for renaming? I actually can't remember. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@MezzoMezzo: I'll go ahead and do it. It is called Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Bejnar (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gábor Palotai may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {Cite book|editor=Fiell, Charlotte and Fiell, Peter|year=2003|title=Design Graphique Au 21e Siécle (Graphic design for the 21st Century|publisher=Taschen|location=Cologne, Germany|pages=230&ndash;
  • * Kolla!]] (Design Award) between 2000 – 2009 approx. 6 different.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Caste War of Yucatán may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • then the descendants of the natives who had collaborated with the [[Spanish conquest of Yucatán]]) and at the bottom were the other native ''[[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|indios]]''.
  • * Farriss, Nancy Marguerite. 91984) ''Maya society under colonial rule: The collective enterprise of survival'' Princeton University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Firuz Shah Tughlaq may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ]: فیروز شاہ تغلق, [[Devanagari]]: फ़िरोज़ शाह तुग़लक़); 1309 &ndash; September 20, 1388) was a [[Turkic peoples|Turkic]] [[Muslim]] ruler of the [[Tughlaq Dynasty]], who reigned over the [
  • that were added by Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq, after lightning damaged previous one, in 1368 AD.]]Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq instituted economic policies to increase material welfare of his people.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zanjan Province may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | subdivision_name1 = [[Regions of Iran)|Region 3]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Riverside, Lincoln County, New Mexico may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Route 380|U.S. 380]] and [[U.S. Route 70|U.S. 70]], between the town of Lincoln, New Mexico|Lincoln]] and [[Roswell, New Mexico|Roswell]].<ref name="topo">{{Cite map|title=Sunset Quadrangle, New

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ong Kean Swan

Dear Bejnar

No hard feeling. But I think you may have biased opinion on the subject because as mentioned in the close of the prior Afd, NawlinWiki said: I agree with Bejnar that an article should be written about Mr. Ong as a scam artist.

1) Wikipedia relies not on expertise but on reliable, verifiable, and independent sources. Every statement made must find a reliable source to cite. You said the subject should be written as a scam artist according to a reliable source or own expertise?

2) Public Document from Central bank was removed – because: Avoid misuse of primary sources. See: Wikipedia: BLPPRIMARY Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person

3) We found Red island involvement and conviction of his brother Philip Ong only from reliable source. None of a reliable source mentioned Peter Ong, and they are two different person. But why his brother’s conviction was mentioned in Peter’s biography? The inclusion of name of Philip is not directly involved in the article’s topic. See: Wikipedia: BLPNAME

4) As you mentioned, you have no access to paper newspaper archives, and so many secondary sources are unavailable to support the defamatory remarks. This has against Wikipedia’s two core content policies: Neutral point of view and Verifiability

5) http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/company-loses-suit-against-nstp-1.66969 was removed because it is not related to the subject. No hard feeling. I am curious whether you verify the source before put on Wiki?

6) Tengku Case was removed because a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. See Wikipedia: BLPCRIME You are feel free to review the source you quoted : No conviction record is secured and Ong has pleaded not guilty

7) I strictly follow Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons: See Biographies of living persons. So I have kept the negative court judgment on Melilea case because it came from 2 reliable sources.

8) I would like to protest the blocking of my account – Garydog. Or could you please show me which promotional language I have used? So I can improve and review it again?

Shall we go through proper discussion before you undo all? I sincerely hope that the controversy can be solved through discussion.

Regards Garydog Alamak1985 (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Art & Deal

Dear Bejnar, please do visit the page (Art & Deal) and see the comment I have posted before making a final decision regarding it's fate!Arty Lighter (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Arty Lighter

@Arty Lighter: I have responded at Talk:Art & Deal#Notability. --Bejnar (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 June

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) 00:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 June

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) 00:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 June

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) 00:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WOEID

I had put WOEID on proposed deletion because of notability, where it remained for over a week without contest. It was a one line useless piece of junk. I figured once the article was deleted, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, removing the few remaining references to it would be good too. Your GeoPlanet article is much better. --AnSq (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Geolocation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to FIPS
Regions of Iran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Semnan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

West Azerbaijan Ethnic numbers

Hi, The numbers I wrote for the ethnic groups of West Azerbaijan Province were taken directly from Persian Wikipedia page for the province, which uses the same source, but has different numbers. My personal opinion was that the numbers in English wikipedia are altered and do not match the source. Haghal Jagul (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bejnar/Archive_13&oldid=1142884831"