User talk:Sechinsic

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Sechinsic! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 00:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Lion RfC
Thank you for sending that e-mail. User:Rjanag/Lion RfC is not an official request for comment, just a page for organizing my thoughts. But if you get a response to the e-mail I will be sure to take it into account. Best, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 12:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was not so conscious on the draft>Request-for-Comment thing . Please feel free to remove or move my entry . I will update you if I get a mail . All the best from Sechinsic (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sechinsic, did you ever get a response to that e-mail you sent (described at User:Rjanag/Lion_RFC)? This issue is under discussion again at Talk:Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No, there was no response. I'll take a look at the new discussion, but I suppose it is getting technical - not my strong side. Sechinsic (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Open Room

 * I don't know about anthropology but the closest term in archaeology seems to be "out of context artifact". Unfortunately, the only Wikipedia reference is here - Skysmith (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Echo de:Interkulturalität (Interculturality) ! Sechinsic (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annales Bertiniani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman. 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) 09:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

COVID-19 November 17 patient zero assertion by south china morning post source
I removed the assertion of a November 17 patient because it's very poorly documented in the SCMP article. The article says:
 * According to the government data seen by the Post, a 55 year-old from Hubei province could have been the first person to have contracted Covid-19 on November 17.
 * https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartinny (talk • contribs) 23:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It does not identify or characterize the form of the data (e.g. the type of document), the producing agency/entity, how people's names got on the list, or any other clarification of the provenance of the data.

This is an attempt to identity a so-called "Patient Zero", a matter of significant interest and controversy, without any more substantiation than an allegation of an unspecified list having been seen by an unspecified person.

I removed the November 17 assertion after having read comments about it on the Talk page and having added my own. You re-placed the assertion back into the article, having remarked "removal by User:Bartinny does not reflect article consensus - please review Talk:Timeline_of_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_from_November_2019_to_January_2020#Chronology and Events".

I have read the talk page. I see other people there express, like me, skepticism of the quality of the reference. I see no significant counter-argument, and yet, you refer to a "consensus" about this very important but poorly supported assertion. Please tell me where I can find the discussion that evidences the "consensus" to which you refer. --Bartinny (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being late in response. I just spent an halfhour trying to access said article through archive.org and finally found the printview usable. The link is live, anyways, but the archive link should be changed. End of digression.
 * No, I see your point, that the scmp article is blatantly not trustworthy. I say this with confidence after having read some of the many splendid sources that the wiki-article does have. For example, from the scmp article "Zhang Jixian, a doctor from Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, told China’s health authorities that the disease was caused by a new coronavirus". A recent article from XinHua, an interview with Zhang Jixian, reads like this "The report is about we discovered a viral disease, probably infectious," she said, and then it was an internal report, not to the health authorities, as such.
 * But I hope you can see my point. The scmp news article is relevant for describing news media reactions in the pandemic. Properly said, it should be a mention under the currently named section Events, reactions, and measures in mainland China, but if you look through the article it should be very obvious that this is not how the article has been written. The stringent criteria for contributions landing in one or the other section does not de facto exist, and that is what my discussion post in the talk-page is about.
 * Xinhua 04016 Sechinsic (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see it in an events/reactions section, as you describe, carefully phrased. But such a section is not panning out. And I look at this and call it what it is: a reporter (the SCMP reporter) reported that somebody (the SCMP in general) saw an unspecified document that had some somebody dated November 17. The reporter didn't see the document, doesn't report what the document was, doesn't say how it was created. The document may have been a list of possible people who may have had the virus, and upon further investigation, that guy was NOT deemed to be a COVID-19 subject. We have no idea. However, for the issue of fact the be correct: 1) the document would have had to be a list of people verified to have had COVID-19, and 2) the government and authorities would have had to suppress those facts in favor of sustaining another timeline, one which would be false and at risk of being disproved as such, to get what? A 2 week difference in the start of the timeline? At the risk of scientific/political credibility? This is the essence of rumor, bolstered only by the fact that it appears in a legitimate media outlet.


 * My inclination is to give you a day to move the statement to the section below, and to rephrase it more clearly as an unsubstantiated report. But to allow it to stand where it is in the timeline so as to suggest that HERE APPEARS TO BE THE INDEX CASE does a disservice to the timeline. Such a significant fact calls for significant evidence, and we don't have it. We don't know the index case at this time, and a valid timeline should reflect that. I'm not trying to be a pain-in-the neck. But if you look at how many follow-on stories will rely on this timeline, as it stands, this is problematic.--Bartinny (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I am simply not there yet. I am presently working my way through the article, so far with a reasonably consistent text up untill 2019 27 December, for both all too vaguely defined parts of the now gracefully split article Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic from November to December 2019.
 * Meaning, I would like to be able to present to you how readable the article can be, when following some system of where to put text-contributions.
 * I aknowledge your consent to keep the scmp notice, under a different part of the article, but strongly disagree to formulate denigrating evaluations of the source - except in the talk-pages. The scmp notice has a right of it's own, as being from a reasonable renowned news media. At the same time, and not 101% consistent, I think the scmp notice should include a hint (to the Reader) that crucial information might be available from the article in The Lancet (Huang et al., 24-30 January 2020). And the scmp notice should go to the date of the news media report, that is 13 March 2020, and presently to an article I haven't even seen: Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020. Sechinsic (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I made a minor change in the wording to remove some of the bias (from "likely corroborating" to "consistent with"), and am essentially comfortable with the entry now. Thanks for your argument.--Bartinny (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Sechinsic (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Phylogeny
If you don't understand that genomics/phylogenetic studies are about the last common ancestor then please don't participate to the articles on the origin of the epidemic Reuns (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If you don't know how to read a scientific article, please don't pretend you do. Sechinsic (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The source says 22-24 November using a particular paremetrization of BEAST and the confidence interval is one month. This is the same in every phylogenetic studies (most use BEAST, sometimes with different parameters). Note that the study is using only 70 genomes whereas there are now 15000, in some sense this is a very bad source. Please stop reverting edits of people in fields you don't understand, and please remove the "citation needed". The second source gives many scenari of before November, that's the point of my Edit : We have no clues on what happened before late November (and that there is an intermediate wildlife animal between bat and human is very speculative, this is mainly a guess based on a few relevant hints, among which the wet market, the Pangolin sequences, that the bat ACE2 is different to human, and other viruses coming from bats). That the lineage originates in bats is a fact known since the sequence has been released on January 11. Reuns (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I also think it very awkward to have this exact date, but that's the premiss we, as wikieditors, have to work with. The Wikipedia text is sourced, meaning it is verifiable, not in a general sense, but by a reference to a published text.
 * Your proposal is to interpret the reference-article, which I think is indeed a very advanced topic - ie. genetic research. For my part, I have shrouded the exact date in a precautionary phrasing: "the expert estimate suggests" - and that is all I can do. I think your contrib sounds reasonable, but it is not common knowledge, and it should be sourced. Sechinsic (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic from November to December 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weibo ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_from_November_to_December_2019 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_from_November_to_December_2019?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Transformation of the Roman World for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transformation of the Roman World is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Transformation of the Roman World until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germania, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roman, Antiquity and Ethnos.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please slow down on Germania
You have done a series of reverts that could be called edit warring, but still your actual content reasoning is not clearly explained, whereas several editors have told you that some of the bits you keep re-inserting are wrong on a simple "technical" basis apart from anything else. I suggest, please, breaking-up your proposals into smaller bits, and also trying harder to understand what others are saying. Are there any experienced editors whose judgement you respect who you can ask to look at the case? I think misunderstandings are building up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Viking ring fortress, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Danish and Roman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)