User talk:Arnoutf/Archive2007 1

Happy 2007 to all. I moved all the talk on my page from 2006 to the archive above. Arnoutf 14:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Arnoutf In my talk page, you have accused me of spamming. I know what spamming is, and would like to object most strongly to your use of that term. I also believe that either you, or the individuals that hide behind the apparently false names of Veinor and Madmaddog, have trashed some edits of mine without any warning whatsoever. I believe that action amounts to Vandalism. If my edits were indeed considered invalid, I believe someone should have emailed me to discuss the matter, or put a note on my talk page and given me a few days to respond. Only then would it have been reasonable to delete my work or better, to ask me to remove the edits. One does need a few days because I don’t have time to be 24/7 on Wikimedia – and indeed I have just recently seen your comment.

It seems to have upset you that on 3rd January I put in a few external links to particular pages in my own website, which you judge “commercial”. On 5th January I noticed my edits had somehow disappeared. I am new to editing and thought I had done them incorrectly in the first place. I spent a lot of time checking on how edits are supposed to be done and I then repeated some of them. This repetition seems to have got up someone’s nose but the intent was NOT malicious on my part. My actions where misunderstood by persons who took no trouble to contact me, who just vandalised my work and then called me foul names.

I am an artist, but really only a part-time one. Occasionally I even sell a painting. I have had a website for years but I don’t put things like nasty prices against my paintings and actually I have never sold a painting through the site. Unlike most other artists, while putting up images of several paintings, I do add quite a lot of text against each to explain the subject and its background, etc. Many people seem very interested in this even if none ever intends buying. I explain all this to you because I have to create all this text input. I do my research with Wikimedia and many other sources. I think Wikimedia is great and it has been very useful to me. So much so that I have long felt that I need to put something back into Wikimedia. Adding a few external references to images and text, where I hold the copyright, seemed to me to be a way of achieving an aim that I think is fairly worthy. Especially as some Wikimedia pages I edited looked badly in need of some material.

You think my website is “commercial”. Well maybe it is to some small extent, but you seem to take a very over-simplified view of life. You seem to classify websites solely as “Non-Commercial” i.e. snow-white, or “Commercial” i.e. nasty black. I believe few sites on the World Wide Web are snow-white, nearly all are somewhere along the greyscale. My “off-white” site is not worse in this respect than very many websites to which Wikimedia already links. My argument for this is as follows. Clearly ALL websites cost money to develop and maintain. Nearly all owners need to justify such investment whether they realise that need or not, or whether they try to achieve it overtly or covertly. Consider two examples. There are a great many Wikimedia links to tourist websites – which you might argue are non-commecial and justified. However, I think they are commercial and justified, because nearly all tourist organisations have the justifiable aim of luring customers with their money to their areas. The darker grey tourist websites are those that have the aim to get everyone into their souvenir shops. Next I would point to academic websites, which you might claim are uniformly non-commercial. Well, in my experience every academic website is run by some guy who is just trying to keep his job, or trying to enhance his reputation. Alternatively it is run by an organisation that is using the site covertly to help get a government grant or to generate paid consultancy. I agree Wikimedia shouldn’t have links to sites of retail companies – but my website is not quite in that class. Although I would not object to selling a painting, actually my main aim is to illustrate beautiful subjects and to help inform people about those subjects. Please try to see and judge greyscales, and perhaps even to appreciate and enjoy some of the beautiful colour in life.

Now, I wish to turn to the accusation that I hold self-glorification aims. In my website, I don’t comment on my ability, but leave visitors to judge the quality of my work. I will not be communicating with your colleagues Veinor and Madmaddog because I have done some research on these people on Wikimedia and I believe them to be below contempt. Both claim to spend a lot of time playing computer games. It seems to me they bring this juvenile pass-time into their Wikimedia work because they appear to love zapping everyone they don’t like the look of. Veinor does it a lot and then claims to be “flamed” or “vandalized” often when his victims answer back or complain about him. This individual (whoever he is) makes the claim in Wikimedia, (and I quote him) “I am an advanced perl programmer, intemediate C programmer, expert mathematician”. Is this self-glorification WITHIN Wikimedia, or is he just using Wikimedia to look for a day-job. Madmaxdog (obviously not man-enough to reveal his real name) claims (and I quote him) "This user is bright". “I have a master’s degree in engineering”.

You might mention to Madmaxdog that besides being an artist, I have far better academic engineering qualifications than he, and also have the highest professional engineering qualifications. But I wouldn’t dream of taking self-glorification to the degree that he does of flaunting my qualifications in a published encyclopedia.

Mr Arnoutf, I feel a badly treated and I hope you now understand why that is so. I would like to know if you Wikimedia guard dogs are appointed by some high authority or are just self appointed people with time on their hands? Just don’t call me a spammer.

Stanley Port. _{Posted Jan 8th 15.09 from anonimous IP 84.43.125.193 originally on my main page, after revert (thanks for that JWJW), I pulled it up and copied it here Arnoutf 18:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)} [reply]

Response

Going through this - Putting up multiple links to commercial websites is considered spamming at Wiki. Reverting harmful edits (such as removing links to commercial websites) is not considered vandalism; leaving them up during a discussion with the author is not a good idea because during the discussion truly harmful edits will remain up for a while as well.

It is not true that you have not been pointed out that you should not put up links, your user page lists 4 warnings from Jan 3rd. As you made edits on Jan 5th you should have seen these (there is a You have new messages banner). Actually the fact that you started reinserting the removed links caused you being blocked. They were not a few links, as you state but several dozens. It cost me about 15 minutes to remove those I took out, I am sure it took the others a similar amount of time. That is why it is called vandalism; it requires editors to spend a lot of time recreating status-quo. If you had put up the link only on one or two pages I am pretty sure you would have been warned and rewarnder, explanation and edit summaries would probably have been given. However the sheer amount of effort reverting your work prompted a fairly aggressive response, listing you as a spammer and getting you blocked.

Your argument that you are new does not suffice either, you should have started out a bit more modest; note that especially new editors can be harmful because a lot of accounts are only created for malicious reasons. Your track record only shows addition of the link to your own website which strengthen this image.

Referring to own works, whether photo's paintings or other is not the best way to provide links. Especially not paintings as these are subjective in nature (which is their strength; but not for an encyclopedia). By the way I have been removing many photo album links as well.

You acknowledge your website is (at least partially) commercial, so you justify the removal of the links. What you put on your own user-space is your own business, people who put their abilities(or even fictitious ones) there are free to do so; as long as it is not openly offensive.

I do not consider myself a 'guard' dog there are much fiercer vandalism fighters; but yes that task is self-appointed. However if other editors agree they in turn can accuse the reverting editor of vandalism. By the way, I did not block you, but attended administrators, who obivously agreed; even more, they have looked at your edits and determined that they were that serious in nature that you should be block indefinitely (rather then a usual first offender block of only a few days). Indefinitely is however not infinitely, it is now up to you to convince the administrators that you may be unblocked (by putting a message on your own talk page or sending an unblock mail). I will not object you being unblocked as long as you do not start all over with putting up the link to your paintings.

The choice of an alibi is open to everyone, some of the best editors go around with the strangest names, that says nothing about their worth for wiki.

Arnoutf 18:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC) PS posting a message on an editors personal main page IS considered vandalism, that is why there are talk pages.[reply]

I'm getting so tired of his behaviour. He's indirectly accusing us of being Nazis or far right activists, only posts commentaries on talk pages (he does not reply to our reactions) he always states the same, makes up his own definitions of well established terms and keeps accusing one of, if not thé most referenced articles on an ethnic group on wikipedia of being unreferenced. It's ridiculous. Just look at the load of referenced facts he's now removed.Rex 12:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is as stubborn as you are, only you are stubborn in adding text; which in my opinion is a more positive stubborness. Paul111 is stubborn in deletions; which is an easy and safe way of POV pushing (and IMHO a negative way of contributing to a debate, mind you deletion when necessary ok, but only deleting is not very positive). He is indeed also very impolite; and to be honest I only heard the name stormfront once or twice on documentaries warning against neonazism before. It seems to me he is a bit obsessed/paranoid with seeing extreme right wing plot everywhere. I just try to remain as polite as possible, but have to admit, am getting tired of it too. Arnoutf 12:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep content discussions about the article

]

You may have seen my many edits acknowledging just that. Only whenever someone sais there are relation between the Dutch and the Flemish; you start shouting about alleged right-wing sympathies. That is not assuming good faith.... Arnoutf 12:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way; the only comment I made on your page was putting up the {{AGF1}} template message, which has no article content whatsoever; this in stark contrast to your message above (which is a summary of your often repeated and wild claims in the Talk:Dutch_people debate. Your remark above confirms my placement of the template; the self confirmed offending of editors is mainly the result of (implictly) implying these editors (including me) of extreme right-wing POV; which is indeed an offense to me; so I cannot do otherwise than concluding you are consistently assuming bad faith. Arnoutf 18:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnout, I just reverted the new country map on

]

I have no idea how that will evolve. I think the point is well taken that the old maps are course and maybe replaced with more detailed onces. The big question however is whether those should be de David Liuzzo ones. The debate seems to settle against David Liuzzo though for several reasons (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries) first of all his focus on Europe / EU only maps. The colour scheme and rivers are not appreciated by all editos. And his copyright message which does not fully release it to public domain. If you are interested in the whole discussion it is the Wikiproject Countries talk pages you can best follow, as there are quit a few editors with different backgrounds involved in this. Arnoutf 12:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm there are now some self-appointed new map defenders who put up the new maps on every EU article and keep reverting it to that as minor revisions without edit summary; I still hope to find a solution thorugh discussion on the country project; but right now the debate seems to be deadlocked. Arnoutf 10:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have written a note at

WP:AN/I--Asterion^talk 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Summary of maps poll

Hi Arnoutf. I'm afraid you're overemphasizing the viewpoints of opponents of the new maps, e.g. Supporters of the new maps think ... opponents mention in a same sentence, this says almost 'supporters have a subjective feeling but opponents point out a fact'. And many generalizations can be avoided. Sample: Supporters of the new format dislike the plain grey-green; supportes of the old format dislike the new color scheme. I'm a supporter of the new maps but I and many others did not state to dislike the grey-green, nor that it was plain... or The current copyright with which the maps were uploaded is not a full release to the public domain, opponents state that for full adoption of the maps this is an essential precondition but as you can see on my proposed 'final survey', I too most decidedly refuse to consider usage of new maps if the licence is not taken care of. I also would keep it a little shorter, some minor points can be read in the poll votes; it's a summary. I know you to have done a good job, don't take this wrong. Do you trust me to revise your summary mixing the way I would do it with your approach? — of course you can always revert if it would not be to your liking. I first thought of putting 'my' style summary underneath but I would be tempted to make that a contrast and thus not really good either, and two lengthy summaries would be a pest for readers. Can we work together on one summary then? — SomeHuman 31 Jan2007 20:11 (UTC)

You make some good points, but I'd rather edit them myself taking account of your comments; the opponents voice a larger array of arguments, that is the reason why they come across with more; but I think that was a bit inherent to the survey as it was set up. Arnoutf 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make it more neutral. I would like to keep arguments in the same sentence if they are actually opposite, because that shows perspective. I think especially the header new or old maps gives a powerful argument in favour of change (although not necessarily towards the David Liuzzo maps). If you don't agree with the comment, feel free to ammend in a short aftherthought; my classification is necessarily interpretation. Arnoutf 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not easy to mention a POV without giving the impression to either support or oppose it. I'm going to sleep now but three things I hope you can fix:
1) "unnecessarily EUrocentric" is mentioned by one 'old'-voter (with the red IP) (and another - #13. - seconds that voter who however brought lots of other criticism. In the summary you actually name it EU-centricity, opponents mentioned Europe, the continent, not the EU. As maps without EU highlighting are equally available (both kinds if properly licenced), it is the whole continent that gets shown and not the EU.
2) Your summary fails to spot what surprised me: of 18 opponents, only the one-and-a-half forementioned votes showed any objection to EU highlighting. It does not play for 'old' maps, but as these voters are mainly opponents of the new maps I had rather expected them to criticize pro-EU arguments.
3) Also your statement "Most supporters of the EU-highlighted maps mention that the EU is important enough to warrant a clearly visible entity for its members; many opponents disagree." fails to point out that supporters do not just talk about the 'importance' of the EU (perhaps NATO is important as well) but give arguments e.g. 1. indicating countries having given away their power to the EU (Nobody mentioned the following, but the former indications refer to countries becoming subdivisions of the EU without any opting-out formula, same as a region or province cannot freely step out of a country: Quebec or Flanders might more easily become independent from their country, than a EU-member from the EU); 2. the EU having many of the characteristics of a nation-country (democratic elections - thus not like other inter- or supranational entities; government and parliament; [limited] law-making binding for each member, [limited] law enforcement, etc - a member state must comply and cannot make a law stick to its own inhabitants if that law goes against EU laws, like a US state has to respect federal laws); in fact very few opponents (considering also the 18 'old'-voters) seemed to disagree and more significantly noticeable: there are hardly any counter-argumentations presented. — SomeHuman 1 Feb2007 02:03-02:12 (UTC)

It is a summary. I think the EU-issue is just a fundamental disagreement, thus should be summarised very briefly (as I don't see how this will be solved here). In brief The EU-centricity links in with the highlighting but also with the positioning; the old maps (more or less) depict the country which it is focussed upon as central, the new map has only one version; which may not be adequate for Cyprus or Iceland. Furthermore, the US states cannot go against federal law, just as the EU states cannot go against EU treaties, just as any states cannot go against WTO treaties. EU laws are only affectuated after a unanimous agreement of all countries to delegate that bit of power to the EU; so each and every country has to agree with an EU regulation before it applies (this is why e.g. Denmark has no Euro, and why there are so much problems with the constitution). Furhtermore, every country can step out of the EU if they like; the economic/social consequences of doing so are prohibitve not the legal/military ones. But if you think the eurocentricity paragraph needs more attention, please make a short posting where you explain the different issues. I think that as it cannot easily be solved it should merely be mentioned. Arnoutf 08:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

final remark For now I have spent too much time here already, just a final remark on my choices. Originally I voiced a support for the non-EU version of the D-L maps. However, some arguments came up which swayed me to the Rei-Artur maps. These are mainly technical but I also acknowledge the need for a better representation of countries on the boundary of the EU. Personally I have some problem with the level of detail, especially the choice of rivers seems a bit arbitrary, why not depicting largerivers like the Maas, or Schelde? And to be honest I think the world locator (black) is very hard to read and looks really ugly. So during the poll I have become convinced we need new maps, but that the D-L maps are not the best way forward. You may have seen my many discussion lower on the country talk page; on which there was some response, but none of the supporters of the D-L maps. I agree my summary may slightly overrepresent some of the opponent issues, but again it is a summary, and the number of distinctly different arguments among opponents was larger (with a lot of the arguments of the supporters docussing on the political reality of the EU which I counted as the same set of arguments). In almost all issues though there is the voice of both supporters and opponents, and only in the technical issues there is a real inbalance, but then again, supporters did not comment on technical problems with their favoured choice (except for the license). For now I want to leave it up like this, and would like to know how other editors, besides you and me respond to this. Arnoutf 08:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arnoutf, thanks for your message.

With reference to my edit to the Miró article, what I actually removed was "-Spanish", not "Spanish", for the simple reason that the hyphenated expression "Catalan-Spanish" is meaningless. One could perhaps make a case for "Spanish-Catalan", but again this would only really make sense in a context where it was necessary to distinguish between "French-Catalan" and "Spanish-Catalan".

As for your contention that many readers may not know that Catalonia is part of Spain, that information is provided in the very first sentence of the article ("...born in Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain"). Similarly, a reader confused by the word "Catalan" is only a click away from discovering that "the Catalans are an ethnic group or nation concentrated within Spain's autonomous community of Catalonia..." That's what an encyclopaedia is for: to tell people things they don't know!

Which brings me to your point that "Spanish is essential for non-Spanish Wiki users (Catalan is not, so if anything should be removed it is that)". The obvious objection here is that removing "Catalan" and leaving "Spanish" would deprive the reader of information about Miró's ethnicity, language, identification with a cultural group and so on. A further consideration is that Catalan culture is not circumscribed by Spanish culture: "Catalan" does not always imply "Spanish". Removing "Spanish", on the other hand, would leave the hypothetical confused reader in the position I describe in the previous paragraph: a click away from discovering that modern Spain is a pluricultural, plurilingual country.

You mention the discussion on the Talk:Joan Miró page. I assure you that I read it before making my edit. I'm not sure that it's really fair to say that the issue has been discussed "at length". What little discussion there is focuses on the "Catalan-speaking world" box, which has long since been removed. Not a single one of the participants in the discussion is in favour of "Catalan-Spanish" and yet that is the solution that has been adopted. Strange. You say that international editors demanded the inclusion of Spanish: how about posting a summary of your reasons? I have to say that the distinction you draw between "international editors" and "Catalan editors" is slightly puzzling. Does international mean "non-Catalan"? Are Catalan editors considered incapable of NPOV? How about Spanish editors?

OK, I guess that's it. To recap: "Catalan-Spanish" is a disaster. Even "Spanish (Catalan)" would be better, if Wikipedia is really convinced that the world isn't ready for "Catalan artists" to take their place alongside "Scottish painters" (see the article on Jack Vettriano) and "Flemish composers" (see the article on Wim Henderickx). One possible advantage of "Spanish (Catalan)" is that curious readers would have the chance to click on the link, thereby increasing the number of Wiki users who have heard of Catalonia, Catalans, Catalan, etc. and reducing the chances of them shying like startled horses the next time someone refers to Gaudí as a Catalan architect or to Pau Casals as a Catalan cellist...

]

Fair statement; well argumented, feel free to implement one of your suggestions (e.g. Spanish (Catalan)) above. Arnoutf 08:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Arnout, I’m not the type throwing barnstars around on people’s talkpages. But if I would, you would be the first to get one for your patience and efforts

]

Thanks just trying to see the best in everyone, is not always easy. I will have to stay out of that for the next two weeks as I promised; gives me time to focuss on a few other articles :-) Arnoutf 12:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart move :-) certainly when it works --Van helsing 12:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Arnout! In het Engels dan:

On Talk:Trijn van Leemput you have placed several templates classifying Trijn van Leemput as a stub. However, I expanded this article last month and it is no longer a stub. Please modify the templates accordingly. Thanks in advance, Jvhertum 13:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I screwed up the listing with forWikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Dutch military history task force that's why you saw 3 edits. The actual stub classification was done automatically. But I agree Start class is a better level at the moment. I reassessed the article. Arnoutf 13:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could you also reclassify

Vredenburg (castle) from stub to start? It is not a stub, at least not anymore. - Jvhertum 14:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Done, I agree it qualifies as start (although not by a very large margin). Both articles need a lot of work before B-class can be considered. Perhaps I will take a picture of the Trijn statue, her house and the Vredenburgh foundation one of these days (after all I pass all 3 every day on my way to work). Of course after I engage in improvement I will refrain from furhter assessments. Arnoutf 14:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the title says, thanks for changing the welcome message. You were incredibly speedy! Thanks. --Catalyst2007 22:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now the hard and dirty work correcting all the mess he made..... Arnoutf 22:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, but maritime incidents is only a small part of work on Transportation disasters by year (already includes aviation and railway accidents and more to come). This is itself part of work on Disasters by year (including Natural disasters etc) all to fill out the disasters picture for each year. To group the incidents eg by century, negates work to develop each year. Hope this puts it in context for you. Ardfern 13:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnoutf. I saved a modification of my comment on the discussion page and a moment later you stated 'Formulated like that, I agree". But I assume you were replying on the version you read before my modification. Best have another look and see if you still agree: I don't wish to mislead you or to put words into your mouth that you did not intend. Mainly I do not really expect you feel compelled to change your answer, but fair is fair — afterwards, feel free to throw out this section from your talk page. ;-) — SomeHuman 29 Jan2007 11:35 (UTC)

thanks for the message; there was indeed an edit conflict, the reason why my response was that fact. But as you suspected it does not lead to a change in my response/clarification. Nevertheless good to have a chance to reconsider. Arnoutf 11:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said you would not edit this article for two weeks, but you did. No-one else abstained from editing either. Almost all the disputed material is back in the article. So the suggested break is pointless, and I suggest you withdraw the proposal - at the article's talk page - and move on to the next stage of conflict resolution.Paul111 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you (you are alone) dispute referenced information should not affect the article. You have still failed to respond to my question where we supposably claim what you dispute. Try to hurry.Rex 12:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited the article besides the removal of the addition 'as in Khadra Sahal Roble' which is clear and blatant vandalism (IMHO) for which I made an exception (feel free to compare the versions in history). I have seen the anon ip's make edits which seem to imply me, but that was not me. In fact, I even doubted for a minute to revert those edits, but decided that would be breaking my own promise. So no, it was not me. Arnoutf 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep my promise to you, but in the mean time that Paul111 is completely destroying the article. I reckon he'll try to keep going until it's a redirect page to the demographics of the Netherlands. Rex 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it, the outright removal of the infobox is bordering on vandalism, and I really had to constrain myself from reverting that edit myself. The only benefit here is that he is placing himself in a truly bad light, by violating cool-down and such ridiculous edits. Things that WILL count if it may ever come to arbitration (mind you that is not what I am aiming for) Arnoutf 17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been proposed for renaming, see its talk page. Please also note that after you proposed an edit moratorium, I abstained from editing, but all the disputed material was simply reinserted. I informed you on your talk page that it had failed, see above.Paul111 20:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this new kind of ultimatum on the article will get something moving. Its not very wiki-like, but then again, neither are his "deletion lists". I've long since gotten the feeling he doesn't want to improve this article. He knows of my ambitions to make this article a featured one one day, and he's simply making up one excuse after another to keep that template standing (thereby making it impossible to get even close to a good article status, let alone a featured one). If this doesn't work then I hope the medation will. Rex 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing an inapproprate link to the

article. I don't know how you have the time to contribute as much as you do. If you have got any suggestions that would encourage me to help more, I am greatly appreciative.

Thanks Again! --Leviporter 09:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are one of many editors having expressed a concern about the licence for David Liuzzo's maps. He already changed this for the European countries without EU-highlighting, see Commons - Template:Europe location. The creator promised to do so as well for their version with EU-highlighting, and nothing will go on as long as this may not have been taken care of. Meanwhile, in case you like to inspect the presently modified licence and wish to comment on it, please do so in the subsection Comments on the February 2007 new licence for David Liuzzo maps. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 3 Feb2007 17:15 (UTC)

Hi. I came across this article while doing some disambiguation fixes. Since this article is an internal Wikipedia policy discussion, rather than an actual encyclopedia article, it should be moved out the main namespace into the Wikipedia:Project namespace or else confined to the Talk namespace. Cheers.—Ketil Trout 23:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are completely right. As creator of the original article I have moved it right away to the project namespace. Arnoutf 23:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnoutf. You know very well that the vote you brought violates every aspect set out in the presentation. As it stands, it can only be 'invalid':

• The survey only handles the new maps. You vote for something else, if someone would vote for green elephants under some option, that vote would not be counted either. Regardless whether other elements of that vote might appear interesting or valid.
• Redesigned maps are not available and will not so by the time of closing. Hence, your 'condition' is not met and your vote appears to be canceled by your own request. But that argument will not be considered: "All votes including remarks like 'weak', 'strongest' etc are of equal weight."
• The presentation states how votes are handled. Your idea of shifting such way but not some other way, breaches the set-out presentation under which you vote. It is not possible to have individuals saying "if my vote for the 5th candidate of his party does not get her elected, my vote can be supporting the party's order or candidates if it helps the 2nd candidate, but not if it helps the 4th candidate. You vote for candidate #5 and the rules and votes of others equally by the rules, will tell whether it happens to get the 2nd or the 4th candidate in parliament or city council. You have no say in such. That goes for everyone.

What you can do, is giving an unconditional vote for e.g. for I.c. and stipulate that you actually still prefer green elephants.
Now I'm normally most willing to assume good faith, but you had explicitly asked about these matters and by the answers know precisely that this cannot possibly contribute to the survey; and you know the nicknames of people most likely to use this to dispute the survey the way it was done with the outcome of the first poll. You know very well that the survey is designed and presented as a closed-options survey, and why. Thus this vote is a manipulation and if not a pure attempt to sabotage the survey, then it clearly breaches

21:40 (UTC)

I am sure you have good faith, and I trust your intentions, however, my vote as cast is indeed meant to show that the setup you chose is invalid (especially hte adding options of which you assume they maybe reasonable to the voters, but with which I obviously disagree). Indeed I do not like the proposed maps because they have undeniable usability and technical problems, and I agree to overcome these would require more than a single simple update. Hence you may count my vote as Oppose (which was not an option); or count it as invalid, but IMHO that will do more to invalidate your own poll. Arnoutf 08:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might not be very obvious to every reader of the above, but it appears my trust in your good judgement was on the dot. I'm not sure about reaching a clear consensus regarding maps to be used, but I think we've proven discussion to be a way towards acceptance of non-perfect solutions, which is kind of a consensus and I think helps our common interest in improving WP. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 6 Feb2007 20:13 (UTC)

Hey Arnout,

I wasn't sure where or who to ask, but since you're active here, you might know. I'm getting more active on the Dutch wikipedia as well, and I was wondering about the technical aspects of it. Do you know if we can use the same templates, if we can use the same userboxes, how the featured article system works, stuff like that. Otherwise, would you happen to know where there's a simple list of stuff like that?

cheers Jack JackSparrow Ninja 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am not sure; as I am only active here and not on Wiki-Nl. I am afraid in general not. Wikicommons is aimed at images for use in all wikis though, so perhaps there is something like that for templates as well. Featured article system probably works the same as here, propose an article and after review it is either accepted or not. Anyway Good Luck Arnoutf 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

If you want, I can let you know when I find it all out.

Just let me know if you want me to.

Happy editting

JackSparrow Ninja 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're supposed to ask question about policy, not about facts. For instance ask "wat doet GroenLinks voor het milieu?" or even better ask "wat doet groenlinks tegen arbeidsongeschiktheid?" C mon 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, however with provintiale staten elections coming up this question should be answerable. Therefor I think it is still a pretty inactive tool; I doubt whether a reference in a Wiki article is in place. Arnoutf 15:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Flevoland (or any other province) to see what they think about the provincial elections. C mon 16:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! When I typed Utrecht I got my lijsttrekker. But no need to convince me, I have their poster on my window for over a week now ;-) Still do not think this campaigning tool - nice at it is - should have a direct link on Wiki. Arnoutf 17:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnoutf, did you see that Lear 21 deleted the table you had created (and that I had amended)? His attitude is bullying and uncompromising. He edits the article at will, as if he owned it, with total disregard for the discussion going on on the talk page. This guy must be stopped! Just to bring you a bit of insight: from what I understand, Lear 21 is from Berlin, and as you notice a list of EU cities ranked by population within city limits puts Berlin 2nd in Europe, whereas by urban or metro area population Berlin is not even in the top 5. I guess that's why this Lear 21 insists on having a list of city propers only. I see he's already engaged in a revert war in the Berlin article with user Keizuko over the ranking of Berlin. He's deleting references to Berlin urban area population ranking. So I think his perspective here is quite clear: to make his hometown appear as big as possible.

Concerning your latest modified table, I agree with changes, but there are still two things that should be changed in my opinion: for Randstad and Rhine-Ruhr, no central city should be given. Did you see how I amended your table in the article (before Lear 21 deleted the table)? I wrote "no single core city". Also, cities should be ranked in alphabetical order, because we have three different rankings now, so it doesn't make sense to choose one ranking over the other, and it's also confusing to the readers. Anyway, if things get nasty I am quite decided to report this to administrators. This Lear 21 has an absolutely unfriendly attitude. I hope you will support me. Godefroy 14:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw all. I am going for a bit more diplomacy as it is now. I saw your idea; perhaps indeed better than mine.

I disagree with the alphabetical order though because that is completely arbitrary, I think that as the header of the section is on large cities, city size order may be the 'best' starting order.

The other oponent to my table is a Romanian who does not like Bucharest slighted. Arnoutf 16:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a definite statement about the introduction. There must be a stable and precise version. Lear 21 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are much alike to Paul111; you don't listen to arguments, interpret everything as a personal attack, and have no intention to find a compromise that acknowledged that everyone has a POV (including yourself). Both versions have their good points and their problems. As long as both of you are not talking I am not going to be involved in you quable. Arnoutf 18:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

]

Yup, I apologized already, just a mistake Arnoutf 11:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit of the mention of "Vibraimage" in the Emotion article. Perhaps you would care to comment on the afd? Thanks -- Shunpiker 14:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had no stamina for nominating myself at that time. Arnoutf 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnoutf, My article Crown of Immortality is gettin hacked into pieces before I get the opportunity to build the article. Is it possible to lock a user (Paul111) out for a week, so that I could stear things up with the article? --Roberth Edberg 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would prove very difficult, Paul111 has a very blunt approach to editing (I meet him elsewhere as well); but generally does not cross the line to obvious vandalism. Sorry, that this is not helpful, the only way is to get the article better soon. To be honest, a lot of work has to be done. Arnoutf 18:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't answer my question. Is it possible to stop a user from editing a single article? --Roberth Edberg 21:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not possible. An editor can be blocked from editing wiki period, but only if there is evidence of vandalism. The alternative is to develop the article on your own page (where you are free to put up any content you like (excepting personal attacks, racism etc.), but you alone are allowed to edit). You may also develop the whole or parts on a talk page (editing talk of other editors is considered vandalism, responses may be made). It is not the idea of wiki to exclude editors from editing, or to protect pages; as this would also allow biased point of view to be protected. PS I asked Paul111 politely to give you some slack, but there is no enforcing. Arnoutf 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my question is legitime as vandalism obviously exists and there is a possibility to look an edit out completly. That said, Paul111 editing of my article does NOT have to be vandalism, even if it MAY - hard to proove. But as the article was tagged, my thought was that I would be given a little more time to build it up, before Paul111 trash it again (he obviously hasn't understood what the article is about. As beeing a newbe, now I have learnt how to do it, the alternative way, thanx. Of course this is also about my trust in Wikipedia as a source which I promote as a developer (My Wikibot) and as a writer (Read 3.30.4) --Roberth Edberg 06:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on my talk page, Arnoutf. I too encountered Paul111 a few times, he does appear to edit rather radically. Roberth, be aware that on Wikipedia one should

WP:PA. ;-))  — SomeHuman 2 Mar2007

02:19 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The

February 2007 issue

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You re-inserted several controversial deleted items into this article, without providing a reliable source. Most of them were not your edits originally, but by specifically re-inserting them, you do assume a certain responsibility to provide a source. The items are listed at the article's talk page, and I would ask you to go through that list and see if you can provide a source for everything you put back in the article.Paul111 19:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not reinserrt specific edits, I undid a general deletion. Arnoutf 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul111 has gone too far with his unwiki-like behaviour and biased deletions based on nothing but his own opinion. I hope you'll join this mediation (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dutch (ethnic group)) and share your thoughts.Rex 13:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While googleling for some extra sources for the Dutch/Flemish thing, I came across this page. I'm not sure what kind of website it is, as its mainpage seems to have ceased to exist, but anything ending in "[...]front.org" is likely to freak out Paul111, so I thought I'd ask your opinion of it first.

I think it is some neo-pagan website or anything, mostly focused on Germanic mythology, but I also found a section "volkenkunde" which seemed as if it could be worthwhile. It's written by people with at least one doctoral degree, and at first sight it doesn't look "nazi" if you know what I mean. They do use "ras" a couple of times, but that might just be jargon. Well check it out for yourself and give me some feedback. Thanks in advance.Rex 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a very suspicious site. Looking at the photo's alone I got a nasty feeling. Furthermore the only reference to the main page I found were on a neonazi site, and a message that it was kicked out of Google. In other words, highly suspicious, I would stay away miles from it (not only not to piss off Paul, but just not to be tainted by this kind of retoric). Arnoutf 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reached the same conclusion after rereading it ... too bad, it looked usefull.Rex 21:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, I disagree with you here. You seem to be looking for evidence of your own a priori ideas; and end up in suspect literature; than you state you are sorry the source is suspicious. That is not the way to go in literature research. Stay away from suspicious sources, even if they say exactly what you think; as these sites interpret much stuff out of any proportion. Even more difficult, you should be open to views other than your own, and be prepared to adjust your own views accordingly. Arnoutf 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to other views, but closed to those who refuse to reference their view. As for searching for "evidence for my own view" I simply searched google with "zuid-nederlanders". Still, a number of websites spoke of "Dutchophone peoples" such more loose definition might open windows that are now closed.Rex 21:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overly rely on Google alone though. You may try scholar.google.com which give scientific literature (although you may not be able to access all, or at least, not if you don't have access to a university account. Dutchophone, sounds interesting, never heard the word before. Arnoutf 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is v big. I've put up some suggestions on the talk page. Your comments are sought. Folks at 137 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll be quite interested in this:

]

tnx complex thing it is. Arnoutf 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just two questions about that dispute on

:

• Here ([1]), you seem to be describing the edit by Rex Germanus as a "wholesale reversion". Can you confirm it contained significant "revert" elements? If yes, it was yet another breach of his revert parole, just after coming back early from his block.
• Here ([2]), you identify the anon 194.9.5.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a suspected sock. Whose?

Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Figured it out myself. That "194.9" thing sounded vaguely familiar somehow. I've blocked Rex for again breaching his parole. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rex is allowed to revert once as far as I follow his parole. So I don't think blocking him is needed here. My objection was against the edits on numerous edits in one go. I demanded the same individual treatment of separate issues from Paul111, so that should go for everyone, including Rex. Arnoutf 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your comments are appreciated, as is your effort at maintaining reasonable cooperation on that page. Rex' probation is on one revert per week, so I think the breach was quite clear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I 'll leave it at this, but just wanted to clarify my revert motivation in a few more words compared to the edit summary. Arnoutf 14:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gentlemen, FYI: I am not a "Sockpuppet" (what ever that means) and a check of my IP (rendered in November http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise/Archive_3 no. 62 "Sag mal geht`s noch?") has confirmed that accordingly. As for the cited sources which I deleted, engelfriet.net is definitively not a citable source but a family homepage (feel free to verify that). Instead of blaming me being a sockpuppet you should rather take a look on the wording of the text which I have deleted and the quality of the sources cited in order to prove this very negative statement. However, besides the fact that the sources are not citable, I have the impression that the wording has a very bad impetus towards Germans and should - at least - be redrafted to a bit more neutral/moderate/academic version, thx. Kind Regards, (194.9.5.10 11:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

ps: Having an anonymous IP does not mean being "everybody`s sockpuppet"

Ok, may have been premature, but a better edit summary and talk page entry seem in place in a page this seriously contested anyway. Arnoutf 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, fair enough, cheers (194.9.5.12 14:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I dont know it it was directed at me ... [3] but I meant the best, I hope I didn't do anything wrong.213.125.116.112 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope fair enough. I have stayed out for a while because getting in between Rex and Paul is more or less suicide. So no worry. cheesrs. (ps why not register, makes everything much easier) Arnoutf 11:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. DutchBloke 11:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnoutf, I don't know if you found for yourself already, but Paul111 is trying to get the article

deleted. Please make yourself heard and stop him as this clearly is not the way to go.Thanks.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch (ethnic group)

Rex 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is really going too far I have to say. Arnoutf 13:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I seem offensive, or something, it's just an idea, rough draft really, but, is there a way that

Wikipedia:Notice board for Dutch wikipedians+Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands and Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board+Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany could sort of 'collaborate mutually' in the improvements of articles? -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 02:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

To be honest, I think there is only incidental overlap between the Germany and the Netherlands articles. Although I like any ideas of cooperation, we should not be cooperating for cooperation sake as that will only complicate matters. So I am not sure whether an official coworking agreement would add much (if anything). Arnoutf 07:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]