User talk:Bejnar/Archive 2

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 2

January 2007-June 2007

Hi Bejnar, I happened to notice already that you have improved the disambiguation links for G15. Good work! In future I will check the incoming links. I'm trying to learn from the way you did it, so may I ask your advice with another example? Last week I created

Thanks for your advice. For clarity, can we continue the discussion on my talk page? Fayenatic london

Hi there. I will look for the Harland book. I know that it is a reputable source, especially concerning magnetic stratigraphy. However, unverifiable information can sometimes make it into a reputable source, and this is what I suspect happened here. That is why wikipedia (in my opinion) is supposed to represent a consensus of secondary sources. The Harland "addition" to the Earth's geologic timescale represents a very (very) minority opinion. I suspect that if you were to confront him about this (and I will after reading it) that he would acknowledge that a mistake was made in modifiying the Hadean portion of the timescale. I am not trying to do "original research", nor present a biased synthesis, by removing facts that I don't agree with in the literature from wikipedia. It is just that this timescale is not in use today, and is not found in modern textbooks. If only 1 book out of 100 cite these subdivisions (I will keep adding books and review chapters to the AfD talk page!), then I don't think this deserves mention on Wikipedia.

Thanks for bringing this up. You are right that this should not be debated from a scientific viewpoint, but rather from the point of view of

Just to clear up a few other points: "It is not selenologists who are using these subdivisions, it is geologists, probably mostly cosmologists, so it is not surprising that these subdivisions are not mentioned in Wilhelms' book and Martel's article about the Moon." Most lunar geologists (or Martian or Mercurian geologists) are also terrestrial geologists, or were at least trained in terrestrial geology before specializing in planetary geology. (The converse is generally not true.) The term selonology is not used any more, as it has been realized (mostly after Apollo) that all terrestrial planets are modified by a common set of geologic processes. Also, by "cosmologist", I presume you mean "cosmochemist", of which Linda Martel is one. All the cosmologists I ever met could care less about geology! Lunokhod 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can just move it to Aksu River (Turkey) if that is the case. Would that be ok? I can update the dab page and take care of the double redirects easily. Cheers! Baristarim 19:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe it is just a stream now. I will take a look at the refs and move accordingly soon. Thanks! Baristarim 20:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you have recently added some hatnotes linking to disambiguation pages to pages with parenthetical disambiguation such as

You sent me a personal message saying that it was inappropriate to put Category references on "disambiguation" pages. However, this does not seem to be correct, as the Wikipedia page on disambiguation pages includes the sentence: Following the template, include any of the standard categories as appropriate. Clevelandkentevans 23:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not create the category "Given names", I have merely been adding some pages that are also listed as "disambiguation" into that pre-existing category. And that category certainly seems to be an exception to the rule that you have quoted from the "style guide." A great many pages the deal with given names are listed as "disambiguation" pages and also give an explanation of the name and so are included in the category "Given names". Just looking at those pages in the "Given names" category starting with "Aa.." through "Am..", there are 20 of them that are categorized as both "Disambiguation" and "Given names", and that categorization was done by someone other than myself. Looking at the pages that were already in the "Given names" category before I began to heavily edit Wikipedia a couple of months ago, it seemed to me that it was not only allowed by _expected_ that "disambiguation" pages that dealt with given names also be listed in the "Given names" category.

It is formerly cited as a fungus. See [1] --

Hello. I noticed you changed the status of

Hm..so in short: Multiple lineages, multiple versions. Sounds messy to say the least. You've already updated the YSR article as to reflect all this so I'll leave this in your hands. Nice diggin. Fred26 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

skiptotoctalk is what you write between the {{}}. If you want to see what it looks like I know there is one on the

Thank you for restoring the elevation citation. The old link, which I originally cited, died, and editors had been using its death to try to restore the (incorrect) 5007m elevation. Viewfinder 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Bejnar I tried to rephrase the information I gathered from the website and added some words of my own-I do apologize for any indiscrepancies I may have caused over an article I believe will improve wikipedia. —The preceding

It is a copyvio, but Wikiaddict isn't to blame - have a look at my full response at User_talk:Wikiaddict8962#Copyright_violation. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Looks like we both realised the same thing about it at the same time. No, I don't know of a simple way to deal with it - better just to list it at WP:CV. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bejnar. It seems that there is a slight misunderstanding (in part my fault, as I didn't check what you referred to and simply answered the question): when you write: "and in Soviet times by 1959 Shusha became the second largest town in Nagorno-Karabakh, with a mixed population (56.5% Armenians, 43.2% Azerbaijani Tatars, 0.3% Russians and Jews).[4]" and cite http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/007/117/117444.htm you should know that this URL is not for Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brokgauz and Efron, published, as it appears, in 1907—1909. As such, the census or actually annual population estimate-count (since the last census was done in 1897) refers to the one conducted sometimes around those times, most likely 1906. Also, it says that Shusha was founded in 1752 by Panah Ali Khan of Karabakh. --AdilBaguirov 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Even searching Google under this name produces only a handful of relevant hits, moat of which seem to reflect back to the Wikipedia article. Clearly, I will accept your statement that the gentleman existsed, but it is not at all clear that he has encyclopedic notability; it is, of course, for the community to decide. I will amend my comment to accetance of his reality. On a second point, I am incorrect in my stated belief that The Prophet is never referred to by his unadorned name, without honorific? I had thought that the invariable format was always (in Arabic, obviously) either "The Prophet Mohammed" (however spelled) or "Mohammed, blessings be upon him". I trust that this question is in no way insulting.--

OK. Clearly, as you will have realised, I am not a Muslim. I am in fact a practising Catholic. But there are many paths to God, and I try always to respect the usage of other faiths.--

Anthony.bradbury

22:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. I didn't know they were the same book. I was thinking I would have to get the other one: now I don't. Thanks for the pointers on grammar. Regards. Richiar 17:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I didn't delete the one in Kirov Oblast; I temporarily commented it out because I was unable to verify its location (it's probably too small to have been included in my master list, which covers about 20% of the largest rural localities in Russia). I'll do further research next week and will restore it as soon as I find confirmation. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, that's not exactly what I meant by "verification". There were hundreds of villages abolished in Russia in the past few years; many of those might still show up in Google in various references. I will have to check with the official government documents of Kirov Oblast to see if the village still exists. Don't worry, if it exists, I'll find it and put it back in the list :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I know it doesn't matter, but we still need to know whether it still exists or not in order to word the entry on the disambiguation page properly. See, for example, Oktyabrsky to see what I mean. In any case, I am planning to run a check today.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, a problem. I don't see this village (existing or abolished) anywhere in Kirov Oblast. There is a town of Vyatskiye Polyany and an administrative/municipal rural okrug called "Vyatsky", which comprises eight villages, but none of those villages is called "Vyatsk[y|aya|oye]". Would you mind pointing me to one of those google links you found, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Bolshevyatskoye and Vyatka are valid, but they do not belong on

Manual of Style for disambiguation pages. Vyatka, however, has a disambiguation page of its own, and Bolshevyatskoye can be added to the "see also" list (of both Vyatka and Vyatsky) once we have an article about it. Thanks for taking time to look this up!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?

); 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that. That same editor had been adding very dubious passages into other articles, and in this case he added lines like this: "she was a late medieval version of Aphrodite and associated with fish-tailed Venus or the Roman goddess of light, Lusinia (Juno Lucina="light") and therefore associated with Shamuramat or Semiramis, worshipped at the goddess cult center of Avalon identified with Glastonbury in Somerset." This, and the entire paragraph it's from, is bull. Not knowing what of the new material was good and what was false (it was all unsourced), I thought it best to remove it all, lest the whole article be damned. If you want to add the good material back in with proper sources (or at least cite needed tags), please do. If you have the inclination, you might check over that users contributions and see if anything is worth keeping; I've reverted most of it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised you reverted [[2]], seeing as the articles on Wikipedia to do with the Earth's crust are mostly wrong, where I tried to make some corrections, as well as liven up the retoric a little. You see, the lithosphere is in fact a part of the mantle, and the crust entirely different.

WikieWikieWikie 19:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I found some new information on Steve Omohundro that was not brough up in the original AFD discussion - 17 publications and a US patent - and thought this significant enough to warrant restoring the article. After restoring it, I made enough edits that I feel it's a new article rather than a restoration (it would have been easier to start from scratch than to restore), so I have removed the CFD tag. However, I wanted to invite you to take a look at the article as you participated in the original AFD discussion. --Zippy 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to you on my talk page, and copied the reply to the article talk page. --Seattle Skier (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed up above on this page, that there is already a discussion on "Astrobleme category". It seems clear from that discussion that when you created Category:Astroblemes in March 2006, it was considered an unnecessary duplicate to Category:Craters which had existed since June 2004. Since all available evidence shows that Category:Craters was intended for impact craters, and it is in fact currently populated with 99+% impact craters, I am planning to undo your reversions of my edits. I hope you will not object or cause a needless edit war in the face of overwhelming evidence that my position on the categorization is the correct one. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am currently at University, and the point has been made by one or two of my lecturers, that, despite common misconception, the crust is not part of the mantle, and the lithosphere is. This mostly is to do with the types of rock found. The two are closely linked, although the fact remains.

WikieWikieWikie 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove WikiProject tags from article talk pages, as you did for

Thanks for your explanation on my talk page. The main issue is that the lava field, though it may be a small portion of the overall desert basin, is known as "Jornada del Muerto" lava field in geology and volcanology texts. This lava field has been the subject of a few published scientific papers, in addition to a detailed description in the book Volcanoes of North America. Someone looking for info about the lava field will find this article. I intend to expand the section on the lava field in the future, but need the {{

Volcano}} and Category:Volcanoes of New Mexico in order to easily find this article (and others like it) in the future. I'll re-add the category. --Seattle Skier (talk)

19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bejnar, I completely agree with your suggestion to create a new article named Jornada del Muerto Volcano and have now done so. I'm very happy that we both thought of the same solution to the problem simultaneously, and so have found some common ground that we can agree on and be happy with. I have moved all volcano-related tags to the new article. Also, I apologize if I spoke too strongly above, and hope there are no hard feelings. Thanks, Seattle Skier (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of debate. The way, I, and the lecturers at my Uni, see it, is that the lithosphere moves on the convection currents in the asthenosphere, both, the mantle, with 'lith' as meant to mean, rock, or something, while the crust just happens to sit on the segments. Crusts lead an entirely different life than the lithospheres. Maybe something like, techtonic plate, is the correct term for the mingling of these? WikieWikieWikie 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, well defined scientific terms are not a matter of debate. You are still not using terms in a standard geological way. You seem to understand the process, but not the jargon. Please read some standard geological textbooks, memories of lectures are not a sufficient substitute. If your lecturers at University have published, please refer expressly, directly, and specifically to their published works. Otherwise, please keep their ideas off of the Wikipedia. Lithos does in fact refer to rock coming from Greek Λιθικός meaning stone. --Bejnar 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Earth's tectonic plates constitute the lithosphere so no proper understanding of plate tectonics can be achieved without reference to the lithosphere, and this requires an understanding of its essential difference from the crust, I quote from the Geological Society [[3]]. There are incorrect uses of both terms in text books - particularly common is the use of 'crustal', as opposed to 'lithospheric' plates, I quote again from this source. May I draw your attention to the 'as opposed to, in the latter quote, with crust opposeing lithosphere... I read on, and the sad story unfolds that even this eminent faculty contradicts itself. I ungainlyly quote, again, the crust is an integral part of the lithosphere, the lithosphere is mainly composed of mantle rocks. I will personally stick with my view, although I suppose I can't argue it is better than the final points on the link, it does seem yo be sense, even if it is sense with convention in contravention??? WikieWikieWikie 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This same source,[[4]], goes on to say in a later paragraph "The lithosphere includes the crust". Check it out. --Bejnar 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the, discontinuity, which is the Moho, means there is a disconnection. This I believe is the point my lecturer was intent to clarify. If the Earth's tectonic plates constitute the lithosphere so no proper understanding of plate tectonics can be achieved without reference to the lithosphere, and this requires an understanding of its essential difference from the crust, surely, techtonic plate is the best description. I can't in my head reconcile the idea lithosphere and crust are one. One, key point is that during subduction, the oceanic crust, melts, to blast through the overarch, and form volcanoes, as the lithosphere, oceanic if you will, merges with the lithosphere under the continental crust. The rock cycle, essentially, does not include the lithosphere (unless you include the crust), and the shifts in the plate techtonics is with relation to the density of the crust, with the lithosphere definitely in the realms of the Earth's inner energies, rather than outer features. The Earth is a sphere, yet the land is flat, like the crust, which lays on the mantle. I think this is reason. WikieWikieWikie 01:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As in response to your question... Is there oceanic crust under continental crust? I believe there is. All the crust began as oceanic crust, unless it was formed before the oceans formed.

WikieWikieWikie 10:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, My assessment is just an opinion. Feel free to change it to "start". Schmiteye 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Problem here is the article's name, do whatever redirect link you have to do, but the article talks about the capital of the department of Guainía, which NOW is Inirida and because of it the article's name should be Inirida, not Puerto Inírida, which is a name that is no longer in use. According to you, the article New Granada should talk about Colombia, and the first line would read "Colombia, formely known as New Granada...."

It is not about being user friendly, is about stating facts, FACT, the name of the city is now Inirida, if someone still thinks its Puerto Inírida, and they search for that, a link would redirect to Inirida and then they would know why.

Another example, the former capital of

Again you are missing the point, the article should be just moved to Inirida after all there is no other article that has that name and the "(town and municipality)" is just too much, and IT DOES NOT HAVE AN ACCENT ANYMORE, so regardless the new name is wrong, im not trying to be difficult but why create another article about a page that aleady exists, and Inirida is not a just a town, is a city, and in Colombia, Municipalities are cities in itself, theres no need to have both, and calling it town underminds its importance as a capital, after all you dont know if there is a town somewhere else called Inirida, maybe in Peru or Brazil. mijotoba 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really looking for sources to back up claims, but to rewrite based on new research; and of course many claims would have been backed up as a byproduct. But I haven't really had the time to do it. I guess I'll take the {{underconstruction}} template out, until I can get some free time (possibly this weekend). --the Dúnadan 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bejnar, Semana might be wrong after all... Choco was created by the Ley 13 del 3 de noviembre de