User talk:Bejnar/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Archive 6

January 2009 - June 2009

hatnotes

FWIW, I agree with you about the hatnotes on Sandland/Sand Land, but I'd prefer not to initiate any new interactions with the particular editor involved. older ≠ wiser 15:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! — Aitias // discussion 07:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I tank thee

[1] --KP Botany (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aethelred Eldridge

There's some nice words in there for us. Thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pat Ryan

Well, my edits involved removing some stuff that wasn't sourced, so I'm not sure what you were getting at. Maybe you want me to source the rest of the article? -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Open invitation

Hi, please check User talk:Arilang1234#Co-editors needed for new article Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 Arilang ^talk 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name)

Please provide content:lead section and the rest. Arilang ^talk 02:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

invitation declined --Bejnar (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dashti

Hi, how are you? Kunni, you even don´t know that Dashti does not mean city hahaha...sta mora khorra*** +**** Aughanan o de haiwanano. siapostan eu de dombdarano --unsigned comment added by 88.68.216.100 on 10 January 2009

Dashti means "plain" or "plain of". It does not means city, but there are towns named Dashti. --Bejnar (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Chavismo

I’m not sure whether you read the article, but Chavismo or Chavezism is the name given to the left-wing political ideology based on the ideas, programs and government style associated with the present president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez
Now what type of ideologies constitute Chavismo is still a matter of debate, as there are plenty of definitions given by several sources.
While I understand that Chauvisnism, might sound, and even have some similarities with certain aspect of Chavez ideology they’re hardly interconnected.
I think it’s enough that there’s a line that says: Not to be confused with Chauvinism. Likeminas (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I’m not disputing the benefits of using a hatnote, but please note that the current hatnote:
uses much neutral language than:
.

The extreme partisanship part does not seem to comply with NPOV as Chavismo has also prejudicially been defined as extreme partisanship. You can use the hatnote you initially planned to add, but it needs to omit the second part.
Likeminas (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about??
.

Likeminas (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cabildo (council)

I can understand the desire to correct "Hapsburg" to "Habsburg", but titles of cited articles are what they are, even if they are not accurate in their usage. --Bejnar (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, when one has to correct about 200 articles mistakes do happen. It is a pity that articles use the ignorant spelling but we can't help it. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What do we do when users are abused verbally

Dear Bejnar I was wonder what do we do when a member abuses another member. just as in this one Talk:Jawid Sharif‎ where i just wonder what maybe on the discussion section. Now i am not telling on him but i was wondering what is it that provoke people to act in such ways? As i have noticed a lot since i came what do we do about them?. Also some-one whom i known little about has placed this under my user name page (Sockpuppet of NisarKand Sockpuppet of Khampalak) under my name, now i have no idea what it means or to what it refers to but i don't like the word "Suckpuppet" can please let me know more.

thank bye

Alishah85 (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure but just going back to some of the pages which i went back to see if this why would this new user created an account a day ago and already made me a target i went back and found another user also been tagged same as mine User:Afghan25 by User:Tajik almost same time, i was wondering if you can check to make sure its the same person. Also check his posts he and the other 2 users using their IPs whose edits I continuously change and argue them to provide a source, because they are misleading maybe the reason why i was referred to as "Suckpuppet" of some banned user.

Alishah85 (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Response at User talk:Alishah85. --Bejnar (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand, it is likely that "Alishah85 is Behnam". Kingturtle (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by state

You appear to be a bit on the eager side to rename the article. Normally it is best to go through the full five days, and only do the move after it has reached the last day, or been bumped into the "Backlog" section. The only exceptions are 1) never doing an RM and just boldly moving it and 2) when there is an overwhelming reason for ending the RM early, such as, it was just discussed a week or even a month earlier, or, there are a preponderance of votes either way. In cases where there is no objection, and no other support, I would strongly suggest waiting out the extra couple of days. However, if you wish, you can just delete the {{move}} template at the top of the Talk:Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state page and pretend that nothing out of place ever happened. Also, one does not normally ever close discussions which one also participates in themselves - always letting someone else do that. In other words, you could have unilaterally just moved the page, but by initiating the RM process you are asking the WP community to make the decision, not you, making it impossible for you to also close the RM. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Like parliamentary procedure where the motion belongs to the body after it is seconded, at which point the mover can no longer withdraw it without the consent of the body. Happenstantially, since my 29 December 2009 posting on the talk page there was neither assent nor dissent. --Bejnar (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. In some ways WP is quirky, but it does make sense, because the procedures all evolved just by what works. And they keep evolving. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved to user page (to keep discussion in one place and because it would never be found otherwise - ip addresses change frequently):

Thanks for your comments on my bold move of Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by state. I had posted the proposed move on the talk page since 29 December without response. There was no response on the RM page either, usually there is at least one. So I was bold. I still don't understand the plethora of "Same-sex marriage in the United States" pages when the same data is presented, albeit in slightly altered form. I will delete the move template. --Bejnar (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is normally never any response on WP:RM - that is just a place for notifying the community of proposed moves - all the discussion takes place on the article talk page. What happens when there are no comments after five days, is the request moves to the backlog section, and eventually someone, usually an admin, will take action, either to relist the RM for more comments, or to move or not move the page depending on what they think based on the strength of the arguments - articles are moved not by majority vote, but only on the basis of the arguments given. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no response on the talk page where where the discussion link pointed, and where the proposed move was listed (since 29 December 2008). I didn't expect any response on the WP:RM page. I mis-wrote above, it would have been clearer to have said "from the RM page either" instead of "on the RM page either". Apparently everyone felt like you, i.e. not interested enough to comment. --Bejnar (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I understood the intended procedure (unstated on the WP:RM page) from your previous statement. I did not previously read that much of the talk page for WP:RM. The procedure seemed straight forward. I am not sure that I understand your angst. --Bejnar (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agreed with the move, but just figured that someone else would respond, as I have very little legal background. I also should clarify, that on WP you can withdraw your RM if you want - but of course you can't stop someone else from proposing it. It is just closing an RM that you proposed yourself or participated in that should be avoided. If you thought I had any feelings of "angst", it came across way too strong - I was simply trying to let you know what the procedures were. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Khalili

Bejnar, you have once again linked "Safi" to Safi clan which is the main disputed point of the edit wars. You cannot first ask to remove any references to his ethnicity, and in the next move link him to a major Pashtun clan from Pakistan.

It is quite obvious that Khalilullah Khalili felt connected with Habibullah Kalalakani. It is also well known that 100% of his poems were written in Persian, of which his "Ayyaz-e Khorasan" ("Hero of Khorasan") is directly targetted against the Pashtun ruling classes of Kabul. Just remove the link.

The IP was very disruptive and insulting, be he did have some valid points, and one of those is: only because his family was known by the name "Safi", it does not mean that he was member of the Pashtun Safis.

Let me give you another example: Sayed Ishaq Gailani is a noted Pashtun religious leader and linked to the former king of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah, through the marriage of his daughter. His name, however, is a clear reference to the Gilan region of northern Iran. Only because he is known as "Gilani", it does not mean that he is a Northern Iranian! Tājik (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the references say that they were members of the Safi, not just bearing that last name. The IP editor tried to claim, without citation, that the Safi clan was a group of Tajik families who got together in the 19th century. Given the references that was patently false. It does appear that many of the Safi are among the more Persianized Pashtuns. It is not surprising that Khalili wrote in the literary language of his day. --Bejnar (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

user:84...

This has been confirmed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Šāhzādé. Kingturtle (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit to WPBiography template at Talk:Abdul Rahim Sarban

Thanks for the report. I just noticed it, because you placed it in my Archives. The bot obviously caught category Living people in the article page the day it ran. I researched it and it appears that you are the one who added, probably accidentally. Check the last edit before my bot's ran. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just restored a former edit after vandalism. But you are correct someone had added, incorrectly, the living person category. I am glad that it is cleared up. By-the-by, I believe that my comment on the bot was moved to archives just after I made my comment. --Bejnar (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. :) [Check it. I think I'll quit this system and I'll archive everything together. Please note that I am keeping a log of where the bot runs almost every day so the errors are easier to be located. So far I had only one or two false positives in thousands of edits. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Gokwe District

Um yes! I moved the article yesterday and left a redirect from the old district name Gokwe District to Gokwe South District, which is where the old district capital is. If anyone types in Gokwe District it is likely they are looking for Gokwe S. It is unlikely someone will write an article on Gokwe region. Babakathy (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see you have written text for this, sorry. It was just a redirect when I check it out at 0620 - feel free to revert. Or perhaps rename just to Gokwe, which currently redirects to Gokwe Centre. Babakathy (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorted now, I think. Babakathy (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Gokwe centre is an informal name, so I am not sure the proper name excemption to the convention applies. It might be better anyway if we renamed it Gokwe (growth point) which I think is its official status? What do you think? Babakathy (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Thank you for the information. -- Darwinek (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Changes....

I didn't make any major change to Ghori Article, all I did is re-arrange it and change the headings. I did add a new heading about his death but later removed because I had no reference...

As for the Prithviraj Chauhan I did not edit it, I undo-ed it to previous state, there is some editor called Rajsaber continuously tampering that article. In fact he has changed it again but I haven't bothered to undo it so u can see for yourself what He is doing....I did not make any major changes to Chauhan article either all i did was clean the myths which were disputed and without reference, that's all....

If u still want to ask anything then please specify, for which fact r u asking the reference for...???

Best Wishes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adil your (talk • contribs) 21:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for File:Stanislava-Brezovar-1956.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Stanislava-Brezovar-1956.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; picture was uploaded under older standards. I have completed the non-free use template for File:Stanislava-Brezovar-1956.jpg. Please let me know if there are any further questions. --Bejnar (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be fine.--Rockfang (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mangrove

Thx. This helps. I would like to eventually rewrite the article based on the river systems. I was surprised to find the Ganges Delta not written up as its entire watershed for some reason, only the major drainages as sub-basins and the delta. --KP Botany (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration

I have just read the naming convention, and don't see that it precludes the use of a scholarly transliteration. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, for instance, uses the same kind of transliteration to write names not normally appearing in English. Personally I find it is helpful to have the transliteration there for cases where I am not sure how to pronounce a name. English usage is very haphazard still, for instance, you will find both Mahmood and Mahmud in English books; Ghori, Gauri, Ghaur and Gori; Moizzuddeen / Mu'izuddin/ Mu'izuddeen/ Moizuddin/ and so on. However, if you don't like what I have done, I will leave it. Energyworm (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As you like. I dont't know what I am wasting my time for anyway. Energyworm (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeats

I'm a little confused about your reasoning. Happy that you agree with me, but you seem to be saying "despite the fact that WB is the primary target." I'm opposing BECAUSE WB is the primary target (and therefore Yeats should remain pointing to William Butler Yeats). (John User:Jwy talk) 20:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rayado

Hey, if you want the link, I'll not complain. It's just that, as it was consistently being added by User:RockyMountainProfiles, it was among the clearest cases of non-commercial spam that I've seen. No problems with a reputable editor adding it with good reasons. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Living museums of the World/United States/New Mexico

Hi, I'm responding to your comment on my talk page. I have no idea how many there are in New Mexico yet, but there are several in New York and Virginia. I moved the cat from Living museums to "Living museums of New Mexico" so that the parent cats of "Museums in New Mexico" and "Living Museums of the United States" both line up. I'm sorry it's not how you would do it. Feel free to edit boldly of course. Thanks dm (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Be civil and AGF

You gotta be kidding. The link is what I gave you to read what "나비" means in Korean other than the meaning of butterfly. You first assumed bad faith and quickly accused that I inserted a wrong information to take a free ride on some flash cartoon's popularity. You even lectured me about "wrong information; especially, "납이 (nab-i) or 납 (nab) = lead (plumbum)" is a brilliant one. I asked you about why you mentioned "horse" when you said diminutive, but you answered me with another puzzling answer in imperative tone. I don't appreciate your rude behavior. So do not bother to visit my talk page unless you change your attitude.--Caspian blue 05:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm sure. --Bejnar (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bear my "advice" in your mind. Since you can not even explain your weird quoting of horse, I see any conversation with you is wasting of my time.--Caspian blue 05:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

El Marj

Hi, how are you?.. this is how we pronounciate it in libya "El Marj", and incase if u are not convinced with what i wrote you can request to get it back.--Elmondo21st (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pec

Actually those two citations were to different urls, even if the content of them was substantially the same. --Bejnar (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, in the britannica.com urls the number is the what marks each entry (in our case, .../448273), with the title of the entry added afterwards for clarity only. When the article used Peć the "full" url became .../448273/Pec, and now that it uses Pejë, the "full" url becomes .../448273/Peje. – Notice that .../448273/Koala, .../448273/Wikipedia & .../448273/Random all lead to the same entry, and all become .../448273/Peje.

Thank you very much for commenting at Talk:Peć. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your referencing improvement to the article Rehabilitation Project Force. Much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Pashto language

Salaam Bejnar and thank you for your message. I believe the Census of India does refer to the Pashto as Kabuli because it makes one grouping of Afghani/Kabuli/Pashto. It may be true that the word Kabuli does refer to a Persian dialect as well, as you stated in your post. It is also true that the word Kabuli refers to a dialect of Punjabi spoken in Afghanistan (see reference). However, since the Census of India groups the three together, and Afghani and Pashto refer to the same language, the Census, when naming Kabuli, must be discussing Pashto. This is because the Census of India makes an additional and separate category for Persian (see reference). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I found an additional source stating that Kabuli refers to Pashto (see reference). Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have added a footnote that clarifies the situation of the term Kabuli to the article. I do not see the section that states that "some users don't distinguish between PASHTU: Kabuli language and Farsi, Eastern: Dari: Kabuli." However, I have included it in the footnote. If you can point that out to me, I can also add that as a source in the footnote. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)