User talk:Bejnar/Archive 15

Archive 15
 * January 2015 - December 2015

reply coming
I'll reply this afternoon my time (Australian time). I really, really must discipline myself to do the non-Wiki world stuff first :) PiCo (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've forgotten what this is all about now. I'm happy to drop it. PiCo (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)


 * Thanks. I've got an active DRN case on the Noah article. --Bejnar (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeat AfD nominee
You previously voiced an opinion on an AfD discussion on an article. It was subsequently moved to user space and made it to main space. It has been nominated for deletion again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantata++ (3rd nomination). If you are interested in weighing-in, it would be helpful to know if you see any improvement in the article and it currently meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer List
I was already in the volunteer list. Thank you for telling me the obscure way to accept the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Pashtun tribes
Hello. Could you please check the content in the article Pashtun tribes which I am trying to wikify and make encyclopedic. Thank you. 182.185.78.0 (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion opened at DRN: General Motors streetcar conspiracy
I had left a couple of questions, one for you, and one for the person who first looked in on this dispute, could you please answer them so I can go forward here? I'm a little unclear what sort of interplay is allowed here. Anmccaff (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

SSC clans dispute
Dear Bejnar,

The User Acidsnow left a note on our talk page. He did not present his summary on the noticeboard. May I ask why the thread have not opened yet despite the request being filed over 2 days ago? 92.96.160.44 (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

DRN case
Hi Bejnar,

A few days ago, you volunteered to moderate the General Motors streetcar conspiracy DRN case. However, I see that you haven't been online for a couple of days, which means that the discussion cannot continue without a moderator. Could you please clarify if you're too busy to handle this case, so that someone else can take it? Thanks, -- Biblio worm  21:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

growing use of negative term "Conspiracy Theorist"
I just removed a sentence where someone was called conspiracy theorist which was in whole not covered by a source. Discrediting people that way should not receive space here. You recently said "Do not use "conspiracy theory" or variants in the article unless parties agree to each specific use." I noticed on several places the term is used when ideologies hit one another (policy cannot get ideology out of head) and the editor does not agree with with person and his work. The use of the term should be restricted anywhere it pops up.Spearmind (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. When neutral reliable sources consistently agree that a person is a "conspiracy theorist" it is not inappropriate to use the label; however, in most instances that is not the case and "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly, and hence should be avoided in accordance with the logic expressed in the WP:Tone essay. --Bejnar (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Negative comments about other contributors on Dispute resolution noticeboard
As you will see I have objected strongly on the Dispute resolution noticeboard to continued comments about other contributors (including myself) by one participant, both in the body text and now also in the comment field. I have left a separate note on his talk page relating to a habit of snipping up another participant's contribution, leaving them unintelligible requesting that he repairs it. Personally I am stepping back from the main discussion because I think this it is best for others to lead now, but I do object to my name being continually mentioned in this way. Can you do what you can to discourage this? Many thanks, and many thanks also for volunteering for this difficult task. PeterEastern (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you bringing this up outside of the DRN. I am well aware of the problem, and I did not give the 10 Februray warning there frivolously, nor the 18 February addendum to that warning.  I would of course prefer editors to follow the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, but the goal at DRN is to attempt agreement, to get agreement where that is possible and the demarcate the differences where that is not.  Given the Wikipedia policy on verification, such each specific in content disputes should resolve into one of three categories: (1) facts or conclusions that are supported by reliable sources; (2) facts or conclusions that should be omitted because they are not adequately supported by reliable sources, or (3) sets of conflicting data that are identified as such with appropriate "authorities", and a neutral presentation of pros and cons. After this DRN is closed which may happen sooner if participation wanes, you may wish to file a behavioural complaint in another forum such as Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, if you believe that policies have deliberately (or grossly negligently) been violated. The Wikipedia policy at WP:Civility is worth reading. See in particular Dispute resolution.  --Bejnar (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bejnar. Personally I have found the process useful and I have gained some good insights relating to the article, even if those insights have not yet made it into the article. Give my dominant role in the article over the past couple of yeasr, which was of increasing concern to my over that time as interest seemed to evaporate around WP generally, I am deliberately holding back from any editing at this point to see if others can get it back to a better place. If this doesn't happen then I agree we may need to use one of the other venues. Very encouraging to have Spearmind bringing a fresh mind to the subject; I am monitoring the article to see how he, and hopefully others develop it with interest. PeterEastern (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As you will have noticed, the dynamics on the General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy article have taken a very different direction now that Spearmind has got so involved and as far as I am concerned the dispute process has probably achieved all it can do. I am currently staying out of all discussions about content, but am challenging Anmccaff on behaviour, as with these edits      and also the Scrambling other peoples contributions section on his talk page. Could you take a look at this talk page section in particular and his response to what I say. I find it totally unacceptable, and I feel typifies the approach he takes to most challenges. At times he writes in a way that hardly makes any sense, and it makes less and less sense as one tries to focus on an issue. Personally I think he should be given time out very soon in order to see if others engage more productively with the GMSC article while Spearmind is still engaged. Thoughts? Personally I would engage with the article if Anmccaff was out of the picture for a few weeks. Would you support his being referred to the administrator's board at this point or being asked to stay anyway from the article? PeterEastern (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Bejnar: I would appreciate your help again at the board again since you were already involved with the subject. Anmccaff tried to open a new case, not that he informed anyone himself or kept it in an adequate form. I must say its really hard to cooperate with Anmccaff from what I can see he doesnt really conbtribute to make the streetcar article little better. Its difficult to argue with him since I really dont know what exactly he challenge in specific. yes its my opinion he tries to discredit sources which do not represent his personal opinion. I came to the article after stopping by at the board and found terms like "conspiracy theorist" used. Its like an alarm bell that someone wants to discredit real people and that ideology is involved. I know that from one user at the Daniele Ganser article. And I must say the street car conspiracy is an interesting article which is still not very well organized.Spearmind (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He didn't re-open a case, he simply created a new section, and also made a mistake with the section heading when he did so (notice the trailing '='). This new section got left behind when the main dispute was archived. PeterEastern (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been several days since I have been able to get to a library and internet access. If the case has not been closed, I will do so, as soon as I get time. As one wag said the object of DRN is not o create a "good article" it is to get the editors to work together.  I do not think that further DRN discussion will help here. --Bejnar (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists, again
Hi Bejnar, capitalismojo wants to revert my deletes of massive use of the negative term. We discussed the term should not be used until covered by source. The massive use or term conspiracy theorist and lack of sources is no justified.Spearmind (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note that Spearmind has regrettably been getting into all sorts of hot water since our discussions re GM conspiracy article, on the Conspiracy theory article (currently protected as a response to an argument in which he was involved) and now on List of conspiracy theories. I don't take a view on the rights and wrongs of what he is trying to do because I haven't looked, but note that from a behaviour point of view he appears to be heading down a very difficult road. Anmccaff by contrast has hardly edited at all. I mention this because I don't see anything very nice happening when the one week block on the GM article is up, but feel that we have to wait and see. PeterEastern (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I use common sense here when someone uses the known term, you must protect the articles. its is to discredit people directly or as a group "conspiracy theorists say" like that, it was all over the place. User Capitalismojo acting is just so similar as Anmccaff in regards of the term. I know Capitalismojo from Daniele Ganser and Gladio articles and had not to do with him for quite a while. If interested watch articles history. Well he tried to delete long existing complete blocks there for example the whole Maletti part or other readings because these were no English lang. books. "This is the english Wikipedia."... See the 2 articles talk pages. Now after deleting the extensive sourceless use of "conspiracy theorist" on List of conpiracy theories article immediately he appeared and tried to revert, well twice. So he must have followed my activities. And then we have user Jytdog from conspiracy theory article using Daniel Pipes working for the CIA as source for dubious claims which I deleted (see articles history), asking to block me later (what admins didnt really like) in two cases without success. If a topic is about conspiracy theories, official ones or not, it soon gets interesting and you see different behaviors. Some articles really need protection but in terms of quality. I was astonished about deletion of whole blocks in Capitalismojos case no one else really around and caring. We will see where we travel with the streetcar article and its good at least one user has an eye on it. For me all perspectives are welcome but I must say I have like Bejnar also a problem with Guy Span as reliable source. If there are so many more perspectives why Anmccaff does not come up with reliable sources like Garrison which in my eyes is very respectable. Its easy to cite him, well if you are really interested to contribute.Spearmind (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Benjar. Spearmind has used his discussions with you a DRN to justify a vast array of edits across a series of articles. This has become a matter of some discussion at a variety of boards and talk pages. Spearmind has found himself blocked for edit warring. Spearmind, your edits in this area (conspiracy theorist) have been widely disagreed with. It's one reason why you've found yourself blocked. My edits are completely defensible and policy compliant, yours have been demonstrably disruptive. I suggest taking some time at less controversial articles and working to improve your understanding of Wikipedia processes. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I really have not had a discussion with Spearmind, see above. --Bejnar (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Van Tuyl. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. TL22 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I have had a message on the talk page since 18 February about this, with no engagement from the IP editor. Please mediate. --Bejnar (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Umreth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anand. 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) 09:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

AN/I notice
There is a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard for intervention regarding Strivingsoul. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: List of heads of state of Poland
No, I don't object to the MoS guidance. But you unlinked only some (not all) section headings at List of heads of state of Poland, and if we start to unlink it should be a complete work, not a partial one. Also, section headings should be unlinked at List of Prime Ministers of Poland too, for the sake of consistency. --Sundostund (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. One article at a time. --Bejnar (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Its done, I did it at both articles. All section headings are unlinked now. --Sundostund (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Old DRN case needing assistance
I'm writing to you in regards to the case you helped close, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_106#Talk:Mounir_Majidi. Tachfin is back to his old ways of repeatedly undoing my edits to the Mounir Majidi page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounir_Majidi, with no real explanation why. The discussion was ended due to his lack of cooperation and utter silence on the matter, even though he was the one who opened the board in the first place. I was professional and courteous and supplied a lot of information to back up my points, though Tachfin doesn't seem to be interested in discussion and is absolutely edit-warring with no warrants. His latest "reason" for his latest undo was, "dispute not resolved yet." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mounir_Majidi&action=history) But even when there's clearly a dispute, he ignores it.

Thanks for your time and thoughts, Chewbakadog (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

inre Pera o Bayong (Not da TV!)
Sorry, I tried.... and considering its notable cast, I do not doubt it was covered in media, but the darn thing is flummoxed by its era and that fact that Google does not archive Philippine media from that year. I went ahead and redirected to its director.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Keesing's
Hi Bejnar, are you still interested in access to Keesing's? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palena River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palena. 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) 09:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

At article talk
Please discuss your concerns at Talk:Jenny (donkey), not my talk page. That way, any other editors concerned about the article can weigh in. Montanabw (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I ask you to assist in a dispute. You are listed as a helper. Others that I checked are not active anymore but you are.

Versus was edit warring and was blocked twice for that. He is blocked for a few more hours. As soon as he was blocked, new people appeared to argue his way, people that weren't around before.

Let's get the to fact, though.

2015 Thalys train attack There is a passenger list. It has changed many times. Sometimes it is about the people who subdued the gunman. Other times it was the injured passengers. Still other times, the involved passengers. The list, no matter how it is phrased is quite short.

There is an effort to hide the name of one passenger, Anglade, who is very well cited in many reports. All news reports mention Stone. Many mention Skarlatos. The third most cited is Anglade. Granted, he did not shoot the attacker but is mentioned many times in many sources and was injured. Incidentally, sources also mention that Anglade starred in the French film (was the lead actor) "The Wounded Man". Some editors do not want this even though this was one of the actors most cited work (probably his 3rd most famous film).

Wikipedia should not hide stuff.

I am mindful of consensus but there is no consensus here. Some editors are busy and have chimed in only once or twice (in my favor), such as Green Cardamom and Tough Sailor. However, correctness has a value, not only consensus. There is a consensus in eastern Syria to behead Americans and Europeans but that doesn't make it right. There is also a consensus for the election which elected Hitler and Kim Jong Un. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am willing to be flexible. Have a list of injured and separate list of others. Have a list of those who won medals and others. Many possibilities. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective! Even though you are no longer a DR volunteer, your insight is useful. If I had to summarize (and do a bad job at it), your suggestion was "consider no list". I know that wasn't the exact suggestion but it made me think of that new idea. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Artificial cloud
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Artificial cloud &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dowreh County, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shurab Rural District. 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) 11:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Burning Bush
Another example, I guess, but what else could the closing admin have done... --Randykitty (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In reading the closing summary at Articles for deletion/The Burning Bush, it occurred to me that perhaps the problems lie in the use of the word "consensus" to describe the achieving of a judgment.  The directions: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). does not actually sound like any regular definition of "consensus". It may be the case that we need to reconsider calling the result "consensus" and instead call it what it is. Whether the test (see Legal burden of proof) is preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing arguments, or something else, I think that if we are to get away from the counting heads syndrome, we need to get away from the idea of insinuating that the result in an Afd is agreement of the parties. Or, alternatively, but labour intensive, go to a moderated Afd process. When inchoate, non-guideline and non-policy arguments in fact halt the application of policy and guidelines, there is a problem. What is the proper forum to discuss this? --Bejnar (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My own view is that Wikipedia works by a version of consensus (and should). That is, ten people citing IAR can overcome the clear terms of a guideline though not perhaps a core content policy.  WP:N, as you know, is not a core policy and is subject to being overridden by a local consensus in a way that say WP:V is not.  That is I might have closed the AfD as Delete if there were literally no independent sources but a few brief mentions take us out of WP:V territory in my view and into a slightly nebulous place where arguments in line with guidelines get more but not exclusive weight.  Anyway, I cam here to point out the User:Stifle consistently reviews DRV's for abuse of discretion so his saying that a close is not manifestly unreasonable means that he feels it is not DRV's place to disturb it.  As for where to raise these issues, I would say  the village pump policy section is probably the best place or maybe a discussion at the talk page of AfD or the overall deletion policy.  Making guidelines into rules enforceable in the absence of a local consensus would be a major change in the way Wikipedia operates.  Even raising WP:N from a guideline to a policy would be, in my estimation, a change very unlikely to achieve consensus.  Indeed, my expectation is that the discussion would run about 60-40 against.  A large contingent of content contributors to Wikipedia remain of the opinion that our content policies are too strict in theory and practice rather than the reverse.  For a long time I was more on the deletionist side myself, but as time has gone on and our content guidelines have evolved I suspect I am now slightly more inclusionist than average though it varies greatly by subject matter.  Of course, I spend rather more time considering what the consensus is either locally in an AfD or more broadly in the context of a particular guideline page than I do in thinking about what content policies I would prefer in the abstract.  Sorry for the long post, but I felt you deserved some explanation and I prefer to discuss such matters on wiki where practical.  Eluchil404 (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

castle of Lierna
no is not the text that you said. Check about. --Alec Smithson (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * See this edit and compare:


 * Looks the same to me. Unfortunately, I had to wipe out your minor edits as well. I will restore such as "materials:stones" corrected to "materials:stone and mortar" as verified and as appropriate. For example, adding "defensive fortification" to type is duplicative, see article Castle. Besides, "defensive fortification" is both over-broad and in this case tells only part of the story since the castle was also intended for full time residence.  "Castle" is more specific, accurate and inclusive of function. I replaced  with  --Bejnar (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you please remove copyright infringement that is false and made only excuses for personal confrontations of edit wars? was only part of the translation from Italian wikipedia thing is leggitimo do, perhaps it was reported that it was translated but it was translated only partially. And for months now blocks all access to the page as you see.
 * Can you do something? thank you.
 * Indeed maybe, once you've checked in a short time, as I say, make an official warning to those who put it if you feel right. Thank you for your work. --Alec Smithson (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not an administrator, and so I am not enabled to deal with the copyright issue(s). As Justlettersandnumbers said here Unfortunately the copyright problems board is badly back-logged.  I can, and have as you know, independently add de novo text. Unless harassed, I will continue to do so.  --Bejnar (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments in Afd (the Stumblin' Blox)
Thank you for your helpful comments in Afd concerning Bruce Eder and the article the Stumblin' Blox. I have taken your advice and enquired about Eder at the notable sources noticeboard. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baladiyat of Libya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basic People's Congress. 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) 09:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=696669501 your edit] to Science fiction comics 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ohio |publisher=Bowling Green State University Popular Press |page=120 |isbn=978-0-87972-821-2 it was based on a story published that year in Amazing Stories. It was quickly followed

Sucos of East Timor
Hello Bejnar! It is nice to see someone is now taking care of sucos of East Timor in English Wikipedia. I was wondering a little, why ou are moving Fatubessi, Hatulia to Fatubessi, Ermera. It does not cause problems in this case, but there are several examples for sucos with the same name inside one municipality (former district), but in different administrative posts (former subdistricts). For example Fatumaquerec in Soibada and Fatumaquerec in Laclubar, both in Manatuto. That is why the difference in the lemma is chosen always by the next administrative position in German, Malaysian and Tetun Wikipedia. Just to think about. I will not change here anything. If you have questions, you can always contact me, on my German Wikipedia discussion page. Greetings, --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Always use the highest geographical disambiguator possible. Thus if there are two places named Yuba in a subdistrict use the subdistrict disambiguator, but if it is the only Yuba in the country, use the country name as the disambiguator. Geographical disabiguation is with a comma for historical reasons, thus "New York, New York" for "New York City", which of course does not need disambiguating. For rivers that need disabiguating, it is better to use the name of the body of water at the mouth of the river. With rivers the more standard form using parenthesis is preferred. --Bejnar (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem. Just do it like it is the correct way in enWP. I only wanted to inform you about the problems with other sucos. ;-) Have a nice end of the year. :-D --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fadi Chehadé, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IANA. 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) 08:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)