User talk:ColinFine

Hello. You have closed a discussion in Teahouse.

First I tried to open this discussion at talk:MOS, but it was closed, as it was premature. I talked to the admin who closed it, and he referred me to Teahouse, and so did WC:RFCBEFORE. I did that, but you closed it again, because it does not belong at the Teahouse.

I understand - starting a RfC was premature, and Teahouse is a wrong place for this. But could you, please, tell me where can I find an appropriate place for this?

Sorry to bother you, and thanks, - _zmajizmaji^zmaji(talk) 23:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea. I get that this is very important to you, but I didn't read most of your post. I only know that the Teahouse is a place for new editors to get assistance, not for arguing complex matters of policy.

Given @GoodDay's comment there that This appears to be an attempt to overturn the 2025 RFC on Baltic bios infoboxes, I think you should probably WP:drop the stick. ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) _zmajizmaji^zmaji(talk) 11:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

14:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response in Teahouse forum. I didn't realized Teahouse may not be the most suitable place. Regards, MindMatterQualia (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask for assistance in editing and using Wikipedia. Detailed discussion of content does not belong there. ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Your response to my Image Captions issue and app assistance links were very helpful. I now think the problem stems from the recent app update so this is the info I was looking for. There was no option to reply in the help center so I wanted to thank you here. Shana3980 (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm please I was able to help, @Shana3980 ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Colin, what's the template you transclude often on help forums which begins A Wikipedia article should be...? Being able to use the same template would save me a lot of finger-work. Athanelar (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Athanelar.

Oh, yes. Since I've been following Mathglot's advice and subst-ing them, you can't just look in the source to see which template I used, can you?

There are three I use often:

• Template:HD/WINI
• Template:HD/WAAI

and one I've left in my user space, since I'm addressing the reader personally (though anybody could use it)

• User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst

ColinFine (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you! Athanelar (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi hello Colin my apologies just checking in I have provided and show the sources fromthe university of South florida in America it directily conncts the 2023 genomlc study to the Bajuni of today and Swahili populatoin.ms or she no disrespect to blue sonnet but she move my message to the pubilc talking page and not responded since I should her .also since this addresses the original research concerns just wanted to check in.agian my apologes Saintusmojqy (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello again @Saintusmojqy.

The article's talk page is the correct place for the discussion. All pages in Wikipedia are public - anybody who goes looking can see this, my user talk page; but the most appropriate place to discuss changes to an article is that article's talk page, because people with an interest in that article are more likely to see it.

I have neither the knowledge nor (to be honest) the interest to get involved in this. dispute.

I observe that @Blue Sonnet (we don't use Mr or Ms to refer to other editors in Wikipedia, we just use the name they have chosen) suggests that you are trying to insert original research into Wikipedia, so I will try to explain that to you.

If your source says something about "Bajuni people" - specifically, not another subject related to the Bajuni people - then it is possible that you can insert into the article a summary of what that source says about the Bajuni people. (I say "possible", because there is still the question of whether other editors agree that it is encyclopaedic or not).

But if (as I understand Blue Sonnet to be saying) your source does not actually mention "Bajuni people" then nothing from that source has any relevance to the article about Bajuni people, and you may not include information from that source into that article. ColinFine (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Colin mu apologies for saying ms/she/her about blue connet i did not mean to be redu again my apologeis but to be clear i am no not or this is not my original researchs i did myself,I am literally saying the academci and geographci consensus fr this coastal arae.The 2023 genomic study brielle et al. focuses on the lamu archipelago.here is a link that bajunis are indigenous https://lamuconservationtrust.org/about/our-people again no disrespect but pleeses accept my apologies coin but it is commoon sense that a genomc study of the indigenous people of lamu is indeed directl relevant to the Bajuni article. my apologies but why you are unwilling to verify the geographic context of the source or the identity of the people living in the study's area you’re self, wth all respect you are obstructinq a factaul summary done by professionals taht reviewed deta. I have provided the DNA source and the geographic proof,at this point, the burden of research is on you to explian you are ignorign a 1,000 year documented connection just because it doesn’t say a word again pleese accepted my apologies again I am very sorry if be rude Saintusmojqy (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

As I have said, @Saintusmojqy, I do not have the knowledge or the interest to debate this: I am only familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and Synthesis says Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources.

If the source does not say it relates to the Bajuni people, then it is irrelevant to the article Bajuni people.

The "burden of research" is most definitely not on me, as I have had no part in this dispute, other than trying to guide you to understand Wikipedia's policies. The fact that you do not like the answers you have been given is not my problem.

I do not intend to answer any further posts on this subject, and I would ask you to keep the discussion at Talk:Bajuni people, where people who actually appear to have some knowledge about this (unlike me) are discussing it with you. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh my sorry just seeing your message Saintusmojqy (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Colin,apologize for messing again but just to be clear archaeologist mark horton, identified the Bajuni as the indigenous population of the northern islands in his work The Swahili.i am so sorry but colin I show multipel sourcs more than oncs, but I dirct as possible so there is no furthar confusoin. anthropologist chapurukh kusimbas, agin in 2023 study in sceince explicity directy links and connet of medieval Lamu Pate and manda to bajuni of today descendants, this lliterally has work of identifyng the bajunis. again colin no disrespct, but the Derek nurse memorial university Bajuni Database identifies the Bajuni as the primary indigenous population of the Lamu Archipelago for over 1,000 years Colin also why are you suggesting no disrespect my apologies but that a genomc stud of the indigenou people of lamu has no relevanc to an article about bajuni is objectivel unreasonable.again l am no making connectoins i am no but show the leeding scientifi and historical authoritie who have already made them.again my apologies but i show the DNA evidence and the geographic proaf, at this piont, teh burden of reseerch my be on you to explain why you are ignoring the established academic consensus for this region just because a Swahili is used as an rain cover term please fact check to prove this no original work. Saintusmojqy (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)