User talk:Arnoutf/Archive2008

Unanimity v. anonimity (in EU#Bundesrat of Germany)

sorry, but it made me laugh. Anonimity might often be sought after in EU negotiations. Sandpiper (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You 're right, probably a Freudian typo ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up

I appreciate it. Actually, keep an eye out for more developments on that whole, anon IP thing (5 anons coming from the same source and counting). Big things are afoot... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards tot he comment about dynamic or revolving IPs, were that the case, the RfCU wouldn't have been necessary. However, the user suggesting closing a discussion under one IP and closed it a short while later with another; supporting votes is an abuse of socking. As well, pointedly hiding your id while editing anon is a poor man's attempt at socking. I tried the good faith until the anon exposed how familiar he/she was with policy. They've been here before, and are concealing that past. However, am done talking about it in the article discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough did not know all ins and outs. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


♠Sir: If I might point out this little detail and supporting reference. Here are the "Diffs":

      • This is the post Arcayne states is, "However, the user suggesting closing a discussion under one IP...
♠I move that this be considered resolved.

* * The film does credit a "Scarlet Pimpernel" * Google shows 1600 hits discussing "Scsrlet Pimpernel's" role in Fitna[9] * Major media has discussed it and been referenced in the article * The community struggled with and adopted an existing position on this issue already. It has achieved community consensus. * There are indications of less than good faith here, Arcayne has used the lack of citation as his basis - when he in fact personally removed those same sources. This is just pseudo-sockpuppetry. And There is no basis upon which to exclude the mention of Scarlet Pimpernel or his role from the Fitna article

      • and this is the post he states "... and closed it a short while later with another;
♠Your comments occurred after this remark:

"Er, perhaps you missed my comment, right above Huon's? Maybe it occurred while you were hiding your id in the unsigned template (don't do that, btw, it's fairly dumb, and pretty much the mark of someone who's trying rather too hard to stay anonymous, whic begs the question as to why)."

As this is a semi-protected page and I am a public editor they could not have been about me. I may not make any changes to any content, templates or otherwise. Additionally as to this:

What was missed is this little - but vital - nugget from CIMBD is this particular quote:

"However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb"

It was not missed. It was posted by me and formed the heart of my position as well as the basis for community consensus. It states quite clearly: "The Primary source is preferred for film credits. IMDB is, at best, a tertiary source." This was however simply an issue of whether Scarlet Pimpernel received full or partial Director credit - that Scarlet Pimpernel receives Director credit was never in doubt - it is sourced both primarily in the films credits and supported by the tertiary source IMDB.

As everyone is in agreement then, Scarlet Pimpernel should be restored to the entry. I see NO debate on it's presence, the request is simply for a citation. This is a matter that should have been dealt with in the standard Wiki way with tag.[citation needed]12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I find no evidence of "pretense of third party" there. The specific identifier ♠ should in and of itself be crystal clear.75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a signature in and of itself is crystal clear. You are not Prince; a symbol isn't an appropriate identifier in Wikipedia - unless of course, you are in fact a shovel, in which case I applaud your rather idiosyncratic development of opposable thumbs and fingers with which to work a keyboard. :)
Look, I get it - know you want to be cool, be different, hang out with the cool kids and smoke stogies, but the quality of your edits and civility are the only things that count here in Wikipedia. Wacky symbols in place of name is not going to get you noticed; being a good editor will. Being a bad editor will get you noticed in all the wrong ways. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


♠So failing to create the artificial illusion of sockpuppetry and being exposed in your dishonest characterizations and false accusations you take to to insults?

Actually I used the symbol here in Fitna for the precise reason of Not wanting to have my discussion misunderstood as being from anyone other than myself - I do not use the symbol for any other reason and have never had occasion to need it. I have simply made my edits over time as a Public Editor.

I believe you've manipulated the good will of Arnoutf and grossly mischaracterized my posts. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not canvas my talk page with unreadable copies/texts from other pages. I don't care who of you is right, only that you are fighting your personal grudges outside the official channels. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. shan't post here again regarding this matter. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your interests

Do they include social psychology, cultural nonverbal communication and the like? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social psychology mainly. Arnoutf (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fitna

Dear Arnoutf,

Would you be so kind as to return to the Talk page and explain how the use of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment violates any and or all of the many policies you listed on the talk page? Many thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough request, I posted explanation. Arnoutf (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith Vandalism Welcome ?

All of my edits to the Painting article were made in good faith. At the top it says 'B-class article'. And something about lacking citations and notes ? And when I looked at the 'Talk page' I found there had been no discussion since last spring ? B-class article lacking citations and notes. I provided one referenced citation from a collection of Leonardo's texts on painting. Clearly relevant to the text, I would have thought. I was wrong, and can see that I should leave this to the better judgment of the owners of this encyclopedia. I also made a couple of changes to the images. I think the Daumier painting is of a too bad quality, and also an unnecessarily literal illustration. But perhaps the owners of this encyclopedia are the owners of that painting too. And I removed an unreferenced quote from the painter Julian Bell's book 'What is Painting ?'; wrongly attributed (in that same precious article) to the dead poet Julian Bell (1908-37) But who cares if it's a dead poet or a live painter ? Or about good faith ?
Sorry. ΑΩ (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

Welcome ? I don't feel much welcome here at all. ΑΩ (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC) But never mind. I'm well used to it. ΑΩ (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at the changes made to that page over the last year. And I found that the "Julian Bell quote" and the last message to the 'discussion page' was made the same day - 23 March 2007:

"Julian Bell (1908-37), a painter himself, examines in his book What is Painting? the historical development of the notion that paintings can express feelings and ideas: Let us be brutal: expression is a joke. Your painting expresses – for you; but it does not communicate to me. You had something in mind, something you wanted to ‘bring out’; but looking at what you have done, I have no certainty that I know what it was."

An unreferenced statement, presumably by the painter Julian Bell, author of the book "What is painting" ? But with a link to the page for the dead poet Julian Bell ? Well... I think I'll leave this mystery to you professionals. ΑΩ (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding / Citation in the Painting article

I just want to say I'm glad our misunderstanding was cleared up. And...

I'm not quite sure if this is the right place for it, but as it relates to my initial (and wrongly directed) reaction -

I've made some further research on the edit history of the citation I removed from that article... (It took me some time...) Until Revision as of 02:44, 23 March 2006 (User:Tyrenius) it looked like this:

A recent contribution to thinking about painting was offered by Julian Bell, in his book What is Painting?. A painter himself, Bell discusses the development, through history, of the notion that paintings can express feelings and ideas. The text is witty and sometimes caustic in order to make his points ("Let us be brutal: expression is a joke. Your painting expresses – for you; but it does not communicate to me. You had something in mind, something you wanted to ‘bring out’; but looking at what you have done, I have no certainty that I know what it was...").

After the edit made by Tyrenius it looked like this:

Julian Bell (1908-37), a painter himself, examines in his book What is Painting? the historical development of the notion that paintings can express feelings and ideas:

Let us be brutal: expression is a joke. Your painting expresses – for you; but it does not communicate to me. You had something in mind, something you wanted to ‘bring out’; but looking at what you have done, I have no certainty that I know what it was.

And that is still the present version. (I may be replacing it with the original) I have not found out who actually put the full citation there in the first place. But I would say it most probably was done in fairly good faith. Some context was after all provided. However, removing the context and leaving the parenthesized quote... in good faith ? abiding by NPOV ? (On the Painting Talk page he even insisted that NPOV does not apply to 'source material', only to editors...) Surely, he must remember making that edit ? Troubling... Not sure what to do about this.

I'm glad though, that our misunderstanding was cleared up. And thanks for welcoming me. ΑΩ (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm difficult, I should have a look at the page, but it is a bit weird. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history of the Netherlands

You were quick off the mark with your assessment of Economic History of the Netherlands (1500 - 1815). It was hardly cold yet :-) I think I don't agree with your remarks. If you actually check the references, you'll see that I covered the paragraphs thoroughly. I don't think it is wise to pepper every other sentence with a reference if one reference at the end of a paragraph will do equally well (though I have referenced particular facts, if I thought they might provoke discussion) [Incidentally, did you notice that someone put a "needs references" template in your Windmill article? :-)]. I have considered using "Dutch Republic" in the title, instead of "The Netherlands", but I thought it essential to cover the Batavian Republic, and the period up to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, so I think giving the limiting years in the title provides the necessary delimitation. I am not sure what you mean by your remark on the lead. If you mean putting in an abstract of the article, I again disagree, but you may surprise me with an appropriate edit :-) Meanwhile, I realize there is more polishing to do. I think I'll give it a rest for a while though; it is too fresh in my mind.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title 1500-1815 was the issue for the title. Lead can be a bit expanded per WP:LEAD. While I agree with not peppering, the whole pre revolt section has only 2, which I think are a few too few (btw yes refs are needed in the windmill thing). But to be honest, I did some maintenance yesterday and assessed about 20 articles in a row, and this one might have fallen to B equally likely (would be a weak B though due to issues mentioned). Arnoutf (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have expanded the lead section. I hope this is what you intended. I also have put a lot more references in the pre-Revolt and Golden Age sections, removed typos and hyphens, and added a few external links. I hope you like it better this way :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job... The lead is now rather too long than too short, but that is a detail. Upgrade to B level. Higher levels have different procedures. I think the article may develop into Good with some copyedit before that assessment will be succesfull; but Good level is not the task of a project (see WP:GAN WP:FAC). Arnoutf (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for revisiting the article quickly and of course for your pointers. I am not vying for a higher assessment; quite satisfied with your B. I do appreciate your trouble.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Romance-speaking states of Europe

Template:Romance-speaking states of Europe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.--DerRichter (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I hope to get the article up from B-class, preferably GA. I think the article in general could use a good proof reading/copy editing. The article still has a lot of typos, grammar mistakes, Dutch-English, but because I wrote (most of) it I can't see them anymore. It would be great if you could look at that! There are a few other issues we could look at in random order, from the top of my head:

  1. I would love an image like Image:SGP-stemmers per gemeente Tweede Kamer 2003.png, for the GreenLeft but I haven't got the software or the technical expertise to make it.
  2. The references on the provincial and municipal politics section are a bit thin.
  3. The article now has a picture for the leader in the TK, the EP and an alderwoman, a picture of Tof Thissen would be great.
  4. I think the electorate section could be expanded: young people, students, well-educated, the sixties generation are all more green, but I can't find good references.
  5. I don't particularly like how I templated most of the citations, but it is the best I could get out of the templates.
  6. The article currently has a lot of red links. Some of those articles, on first instance the senators, party chairs or former MPs could easily be written.

Again thanks for the offer. Any help is welcome! C mon (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC) BTW I'm Dutch as well, and a GreenLeft member[reply]

Sorry have not come around to do anything, finally spring so not much computer time this weekend :-)
Re:1. My graphics skills are limited as well.....
Re:2. Good point, will be a primary sources issue though, pulling it from GL websites
Re:3. I'll have a look for a senator image (Britta Böhler might be possible too). (I agee with Marijke Vos who is the most high profile alderperson we currently have)
Re:4 I'll try; but I am not sure whether after the fact PD sources of this data exist. We could look at "polling bureaus", "NOS" or "GreenLeft" itself.
Re:5 I'll have a look at the citations when doing a copyedit read-through. I know something about citations (psychology style) but philosophy and history; or natural sciences tend to be very different. It will always be a compromise......
Re:6 I noticed that, and I don't like the red links much. Sometimes it is better not to wikilink than to Wikilink to nonexistent (red) articles. We should always consider notability in international context before starting articles. I would rather link to Dutch articles, or remove the Wikilink at all than make up some unnotable articles. (But that is my opinion).
Anyway, ~I'll try to make some time for this soon; but real-life is busy too. Arnoutf (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Princess Máxima of the Netherlands

Wow, you're fast! Ghehe, I also wanted to revert the edit about nationality. However, when I wanted to save the page I saw that you were already before me :-)) Demophon (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes happens, had it before as well ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Arnout...I got your name,etc. from a Dutch language talk/'argument" regarding Dutch and Afrikaans. I'm new at this so I apologize if this manner of contact is problematic. Maybe you can assist me in getting my feet wet. I have set up a user page. thank you..````;-)````Buster7````

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Names for Dutch Language

Would the addition of "Perhaps" to the initial sentance be an acceptable edit??--Buster7 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly understand the opening sentence, so I guess most edits to that line are an improvement. Arnoutf (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re - on Village pump

Thank you for your kind response, Arnoutf.

I believe proving anyone that I´m not related to the company is to say the least quite difficult: (you may want to check my ip number and kviar.com´s maybe?)

However, the fact that I´m spending my time asking beforehand instead of just posting (as I´m sure several companies do) must prove I´m really in good faith.

Finally, please do check if the text I´ll send is somewhat biased, and if it looks then feel more than free to delete it.

If all that looks reasonable with the community I´ll go ahead: please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks again! :)


You are now asking for advice on notability of the company. However, from your question I guess you are in some way linked to the company. That immediately flags up other concerns such as potential conflict of interest and neutrality of your point of view. If you think you are fine with all those guidelines, please go ahead. If you make all of these judgments in good faith and there are doubts nevertheless you can at worst expect that the article will be nominated for deletion. Arnoutf (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No need, I just stated that "if" you were affiliated to the company there are other issues besides notability to take into account. Even an editor who is affiliated with a subject (many are) can make good contributions, but judging neutrality is an issue in such cases. Basically, if you trust yourself to be fair, I would trust you (under WP:AGF). I would say edit quality speaks louder than affiliation anytime (and to be honest I have no idea how to check IP's anyway, I'll leave that to the whizkids). Arnoutf (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here´s the future post: thanks! :)

Thank you for your good faith: below is the text I´ll publish.

I beg you to let me know if there´s anything that may be off the lines and I thank you once again for your kind help:

Kviar is a a specialty retailer which started as an online music distributor. The company has been in business since 1999 and is headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Founded in 1999 by Alvaro de Castro (pioneer of the Internet in Brazil: wrote the first book on e-commerce in Brazil in 1997), its history and focus are similar to the U.S. retailer chain "The Sharper Image", which started as a Xerox company and gradually changed its focus to retailing innovative goods.

Kviar began as an online system for discovery and sales of music from unknown musicians. At its peak, the website (http://www.kviar.com) had over 20 thousand songs from over 3 thousand musicians, allowing people to build customized radios, burn CDs online, etc. For that it closed a deal in January 2003 with US Company Immediatek, Inc. (OTCBB:IMDK) for its "Netburn" technology, which allowed the website visitors to choose which tracks to burn online using their own CD burners.

Later in that year the company developed a customized CD burning kiosk that allowed anyone to choose from the company´s catalogue, pay with bills as with a regular coffee machine, and receive the CD in minutes.

The company then ran a road-show for various investors from Sand Hill Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Hill_Road), but the lack of knowledge on VC´s on the music industry, and the lack of interest from record labels on anything to do with the internet forced the company to gradually change its focus to the retail of chinese imports.

Today the company sells innovative goods through its website (http://www.kviar.com) (which represent close to 60% of the total company revenue), retail stores, and a 1-800 system. The company claims to be the single dotcom in Brazil using an SMS system to keep the customer updated on anything to do with their orders such as payment, delivery, password, the status of their request, and so on.

At the end of 1997 the company opened its first physical store and started a franchise system.


External Links Kviar website http://www.kviar.com

Immediatek Licenses CD Burning Technology to Brazilian Music Company http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/software-services-applications-internet-audio/5693984-1.html

Kviar Sees Custom CD Kiosks All over Brazil. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5932/is_200308/ai_n23872541 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcosta (talk • contribs) 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I published the article

you can see it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kviar

it still needs polishing: I´m working on that

Let me know if it needs something to be more "wikable"

Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcosta (talk • contribs) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweede Kamer

So, Cohen would have become PM when the PvdA would lose, but nevertheless form a coalition, and someone else (presumably Bos) would become PM when the PvdA would become the largest party? It does not sound quite likely to me. Ucucha 17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was something like that though. Prior to election the combinaton CDA-PvdA was not so obvious; while there was long an option for a left-liberal combination PvdA-GreenLeft-SP (and D66). As Bos was the center of the PvdA campaign; he stated he would be happy to take up PM if they won; but would see it as a personal defeat if they lost, in which case he would not become PM. It is only mentioned here because that would indeed have been less common. Arnoutf (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for clarifying. However, I think it would be good to add a reference to verify this, as there may be more people like me who would think that it is erroneous. Ucucha 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree a statment that is counterintuitive needs a reference. Arnoutf (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to provide one? Ucucha 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament groups

We are trying to find consensus on the "leftist issue". Do you prefer "Communists and Far-left Socialists" or "Communists and Far-left"? You can state your preference in talk page. --Checco (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelfout in Dutchparlseats2.png

Wist je dat er een spelfout op je (overigens zeer huldenswaardige) plaatje Dutchparlseats2.png staat? In de kop staat "parlaiment", dat moet "parliament" zijn. Captain Chaos (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, never come around to correcting and updating that. Arnoutf (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financial history

It is a good thing I don't do it for the assessments. Why not make it stub class :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A Call to Civility

If I could, let me make a point about my recent "undo's". I really do appreciate you attempts to "clean up the mess". But, the only way to end the joke is not to repeat it. The point I'd like you to consider is that everytime Richard has a chance he says "Belgians are ________"... My talk, edits summaries, discussions, etc. That is at the heart of my position. To me its like mindless, malicious gossip over the back fence. I respect your edits, your comments, your talk. It is no coincidence that you were the first to greet me. I consider it my luck!!!--Buster7 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of emotion researchers

Re this edit, I agree that notability is not established by an article on Wikipedia. It is established by coverage by reliable sources. At present, there are no sources in that section to indicate that the people on that list are notable. Technically, per WP:V, the whole list could then be removed. Instead, I removed only the redlinks, since I figured that the fact that the others had Wikipedia articles was probably an indicator, though not an absolute one, of notability. I'm not going to involve myself further in that section, in part because you clearly know more about the subject than I do and I trust you to effectively maintain the contents of that list, but I'd encourage you to add some refs to that section when you get a chance, so that future outside editors like me can distinguish between list members who are notable, and those who are vanity-additions. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I appreciate your idea, I agree it needs to be cleaned out, but some of the blue links are not notable either and James Russell (redlink) is more important than several of those. I started a thread on the talk page to try sort it out. Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

How do you pronounce Eerbeek, please? Because, we would like to write an article on it in Arabic wp. Thank you. --DrFO.Jr.Tn (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expert in phonetics but in English it would be something like Ayrbayk - Arnoutf (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular support for the EU: remove unreferenced section - find the references please

You've removed the complete section with the above summary. I had noticed this section earlier today and put a citation template, because--like you--I would like to see some references for those claims. However, I think it would just be fair to allow the editor more than a few hours to so. After all, this section appears relevant to me and therefore I am glad it was started. Please explain why the section is so unacceptable that it has to be removed immediately or could you perhaps agree to the following: Reinstall the previous state (with template) and urge the author to provide sources.Tomeasytalk 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the whole EU article is a heavily discussed article; and about half a year ago we spent a lot of attention getting everything referenced. Addition of section without (high quallity) sources will not be an improvement. (I removed the new religion bit with the same summary, until sources were provided). In this special case the one-line content is too little information, non-referenced, and in my opinion not well placed inside the structure (politics?). If there is a need for a public support section I would suggest that this section is developed further and with references is placed at an appropriate position later on.Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Conclusion

The Mediation discussion regarding the inclusion of the EU in List of countries by GDP (nominal) has come to a conclusion with the following result:

  • The EU to remain in List of countries by GDP (nominal).
  • The EU to be positioned according to GDP rank between World and USA.
  • No consensus on the EU appearing in all three charts. By convention this means the situation would remain as current - that is the EU remains on all three charts.
  • Data for the EU on each chart to only be given if sourced, otherwise a dash to replace the data.
  • Explanation to be placed in the lead section for the appearance of the EU and other non-countries. Possible wording: "Several economies which are not normally considered to be countries are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison."
  • The List retains the current name.
  • A suggestion by Tomeasy that I feel should be carried out is that the sister articles are given the same treatment as agreed above.

Unless there are significant disagreements within the next 48 hours I will be closing the Mediation. Any questions, please get in touch. Regards SilkTork *YES! 11:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fethullah Gulen

i would like to work on the intro part. would you provide some help? Philscirel (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i liked your approach. see some comments on the talk page. Philscirel (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the main structure seems to be established to me. please let me know how do you feel about the current lead section, and is there any statements need to be neutralized in your opinion. i am done for today... thanks for the useful suggestions. Philscirel (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it neutral now? I think it needs supervision to stay on track. --Adoniscik(t, c) 17:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mwah, I think there are still some subtle supporter POVs in the lead at the moment (critique free tone more than content). Especially paragraph 2 and 3. But I can live with the current version. I agree it needs monitoring Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to WP any more, so I would appreciate it if you can keep an eye out for philscirel. He keeps creating new accounts. --Adoniscik(t, c) 21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure changes made by other people all vandalism?How dou you know this?Do you believe you know everything about this Fethullah Gulen and others nothing?No! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.173.190.149 (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsummarised reverts to clearly POV versions without sources are vandalism. Arnoutf (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NLers

Zoals ik ook tegen Iblardi zeg, het is niet nodig om zomaar de collage op te geven omdat één persoon die niet wilt. Een foto van hollanders op straat mag best in het artikel, maar we mogen best een collage behouden en tenzij je dat niet meer wilt moedig ik je aan om daar achter te blijven staan. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twee, eigenlijk--Buster7 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collage heeft ook nadelen. Ik heb vooral moeite met de oversimplistische stereotypes in de plaatjes. De fietsers ook wel een stereotype voelen een stuk beter ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wat bedoel je met oversimplistisch? Maar die foto van fietsers kan ook ergens anders in het artikel, dus wat dacht je van gewoon allebei? Ik kan bijvoorbeeld ook de collage wat kleiner maken. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
De klompen en tulpen als oversimplistisch. Ik denk dat de collage zoals die er nu uitziet een rol heeft in etnogenese ofzo. Arnoutf (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collages worden bijna op elke pagina gebruikt voor etnische groepen, het is best raar om die ergens midden in het artikel te zetten toch? - PietervHuis (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ga deze discussie op de talk Dutch-people pagina aan. Ik heb geen zin om daar de enige te zijn die vol tegen een editor ingaat. De fiets foto heft het "klompen tulpen" stereotype op, maar niet dit bezwaar. Maar dit is niet noodzakelijk mijn probleem met een enkele foto. Arnoutf (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gülen

Your input on the recent edit war on that article would be valued. Nandesuka (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMILE

Buster7 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. As I've said b4...it was a remarkable co-incidence that you were the first wiki-editor to greet me. Peace!--Buster7 (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bepaalde editors

Ik heb de pagina van de collage opgeslagen, dus ik kan hem zo weer terugplaatsen, dus ik kan er makkelijk mee wachten. Wanneer ik dat doe roepen we gewoon wat (willekeurige) nederlandse users op om te kiezen wat beste is, want het mag allebei.

En ja hij is best taai en dat kan vervelend zijn. Zijn waarheid is de enige waarheid. Wat betreft de Vlamingen, voor zover ik weet is het onderzoek naar genetische gelijkenis met ons nog bezig. Ik ben iniedergeval niet onder de indruk van zijn bronnen. Wat de uitslag is maakt mij niet veel uit, aan de ene kant wel leuk, samen zijn we groter, maar aan de andere kant hebben de vlamingen niet zoveel bereikt als ons ;) - Pieter_v (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarine Spitfire variants now under new title

Hi Arnoutf, you'll be pleased to know that these articles have been renamed; Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin powered variants) and Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin powered variants); they are still seperate to ensure that a single article wouldn't be too long. I apologise if I came over a bit grouchy in my reply in the talk page, I was in a pickle because of house renovations. Regards,Minorhistorian (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, makes much more sense this way. Arnoutf (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Dutch (ethnic group)

Hello Arnoutf, could you modify your contribution here? At the moment it is not entirely clear what you mean to say. Thanks in advance. Iblardi (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Would you mind translating the following for me Vrijwilligers van Natuurpunt graven een ijsvogelwand in het Saleghem Krekengebied die nu jaar na jaar nesten herbergt.? (it's the caption of a ne-wiki image I might use if it says what I think it does). thanks 06:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is a bit rough in Dutch, so I my translation will be as well. Editorial explanation give in [square brackets]. The meaning is
  • "Volunteers of Natuurpunt [lit. Naturepoint - not translated as name of organisation] are diggins a Kingfisher-wall in the Saleghem [name with not inherent meaning] creek area; where now nests [of kingfishers] can be found year to year."
The latter part about the nests is a bit ambiguous in Dutch, but on reading [:nl:Saleghem Krekengebied] I understand that the nesting is the direct result of the volunteers digging steep bank to replace the shallow banks/shores pre-2001.
In my own words. The photo depicts a 2001 action of volunteers of a local environmental organisation creating very steep shore in the local creek with the intention to create kingfisher nesting potential. (The rest of the text reports that since this action the create steep shore has indeed become a regular kingfisher nesting place). I hope this is what you thought? Arnoutf (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I thought it must be something like that - since it was clearly about a nature group, they were unlikely to be digging out nesting kingfishers! - but just as well to be sure. Now to sort out that Chinese article about kingfishers I've just found.... Thanks again jimfbleak (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement drive

The article improvement drive of the WikiProject Netherlands is currently inactive. Do you think the article improvement drive would stand a chance when only one article is selected (voted for?) each month? – Ilse@ 21:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might be, but I think the whole project has a low activity level apart from some tagging of articles. So even that maybe too much. Perhaps worth to try to limit to one article. Arnoutf (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image at Dutch article

Hey Arnoutf, how have you been? The editor that changed the image is obviously inconsiderate and feels independant of any rules of conduct. What can be done to reign this "mad-imager" in? A check of his talk page shows how very inconsiderate he is.--Buster7 (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been (and still are) very busy in real life. "Mad-imagers" are often quite harmless as most of their contributions are at first the uploading of a massive amount on copy-vio pictures; which are then deleted again without ever popping up. Arnoutf (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mug shots

I started a thread here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mug_shots. Would you mind giving input? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Welcome to this article Arnoutf. Now we get to work on three articles together. Raggz (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion‎

You were too quick to revert the change, I didn't change the UK interwiki, I have just inserted Turkish in between. Watch carefully. Groetjes uit Belgie BillyGee (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realised my mistake, the anon just before you did that UK thing, I corrected it right away. Sorry for my indeed overly quickness there. Arnoutf (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries.BillyGee (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New pages-statistics

Hello Arnoutf! I have added some basic research to the bottom of my proposal, to which I would be glad to have your comment. Could you have a look at User:Plrk/On the creation of articles#The statistics? Plrk (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't agree with the conclusion you draw from the statistics. I readily believe that non-linking articles are of less interest/quality compared to linked articles. I think you are turning the argument around in the kind of flawed logic of the type All penguins are birds, hence all birds are penguins. (most deleted articles have no links; hence no linked articles should be prevented from creation) Arnoutf (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I corrected the link you gave to WP:Countries in your post on the VP(Policy) board. If you posted your notice elsewhere, you might want to copy that over. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I always forget the wikilinking with or without colons etc. between talks. I'll try to remember ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for the help on the Emotion page. I was able to format the external links in more detail than they were before, but as far as the content concerning psychology, that is not really my field, so I appreciate your knowledge! Funandtrvl (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA

Hey, just to let you know, we didn't form our republic after the French.Prussian725 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FACR

Arnoutf/Archive2008, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny punctuation remark

Please note that currency signs come before the amount in English (€2bn, not 2bn€). Thanks. SergioGeorgini (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do a straight RFC of Ni says Knight, but it said to try this first

Over at the village pump, I was going to file a complaint against users: Ni says Knight (and to a lesser degree Mwanner-whose I gave just a 1 paragraph complaint on his talkpage) Could you click the link and then discuss the issues that I raised at the talk pages. My message isn't meaningful and nothing will get done, if I can't cite a fellow user involved in the situation, who agrees with the arguments that I presented. I'm pretty exhausted now, and could use some help with the amount of labor if either user tries to stretch this thing out or make a WP:POINT. They would not be wrong to cite relevant guidelines, and argue that they didn't break them, but this is more about the ends than the means. Sentriclecub (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT, CIVIL etc are very hard to prove, I have not been sufficiently involved to comment on your lengthy discouse, By the way I am not at all a fan of your kind of canvassing either. Arnoutf (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fitna - Short film or Propaganda film?

Just a quick note to let you know that the consensus you were a party to at Talk:Fitna_Film[1] has been changed and is under discussion.75.49.223.52 (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

Hello Arnoutf. I saw a comment you left over at the Village Pump, and believe you should consider applying for adminship. I looked at your participation at Talk:Dutch people and believe you have the ability to keep your head in a confusing, stressful situation. My quick review of your contributions with the wannabe_kate tool suggested you've made many contributions in Wikipedia space and you can deal with policy dialogs. You have over 3,600 mainspace edits, which is more than enough to be taken seriously. Please let me know if this interests you. You can send email if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Swan/Black Swan

Somewhere long ago, I think it was Dutch Language, you made mention of the above debate. When I saw this image I thought of you.

Tnx ;-) For sizing just add |SIZEpx after the image name (size is the number of pixels). Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid dissociation constant - re-written lead

I have now re-written the lead for acid dissociation constant. The essential content of the lead is the same as before. The effect of this change will be that when chemists will read the explanatory material they will say to themselves, yes, I know that, but non-chemists will hopefully get the gist of what the article is about

I invite you to read it and then record your “vote”, e.g. “now support” or “still oppose”, at wp:Featured_article_candidates/Acid_dissociation_constant. I have assembled a list of names under Re-written lead, so that the responses will be collected together in one place.

Some minor disagreements will inevitably remain. These should not be a reason for opposition. Rather, put constructive ideas on the article’s talk page, so that the article can be further improved by the normal editing process. Petergans (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itub (talk) has proposed an alternative, shorter version of the lead at User:Itub/ADC lead. Petergans (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of USA

I would hardly think the BBC History website and the writing of Peter Macdonald is less reputable than the USA today newspaper. Why not allow both of these claims a place in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuusha (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Painting article

I made an edit to the Painting article, after noticing that the definition in the first paragraph had been altered from "applying colour", to "applying paint", which clearly makes it more narrow. Instead of merely reverting it, I replaced it with a referenced definition (from Merriam-Webster), that surely ought to have been accepted as a reasonable compromise. Instead, it was immediately reverted by User:Research Method, with no explanation. I'll also say that this sentence in the first paragraph -

"When used in western painting, "painting" means also the use of this arts activity in combination with drawing, composition or abstraction and other aesthetic means in order to manifest the expressive and conceptual intention of the practitioner."

- is entirely unnecessary, in view of the opening of the next paragraph. And there is a statement about calligraphy, not at all conforming with common definitions and that seems out of proportion with its importance, in that part of the article anyway. From the discussion at the Talk page ("Research method" also signing with "Peas & Luv") it seems quite clear to me that the user in question does not show constructive intent. What has happened there practically amounts to vandalism. ΑΩ (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Image article just now and found this: Revision as of 23:52, 28 October 2008. Whereupon follows the insertion of several random images. User:Modernist removed this vandalism. And then yet another random image was inserted by user "Research Method". Reverted by User:Tyrenius. It would seem quite certain, then, that the changes made by "Research Method" to the Painting article are not exactly made in the most constructive of spirits... ΑΩ (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, reverting an edit by a user that is allowed to vandalize an article is senseless.
"Tàpies started as a surrealist painter, his early works were influenced by Paul Klee and Joan Miró; but soon become an abstract expressionist, working in a style known as "Arte Povera", in which non artistic materials are incorporated into the paintings. In 1953 he began working in mixed media; this is considered his most original contribution to art. One of the first to create serious art in this way, he added clay and marble dust to his paint and used waste paper, string, and rags (Grey and Green Painting, Tate Gallery, London, 1957)."
Now, some would perhaps say that incorporating these materials into a painting would tend to make it less a painting. Most fascist, for example, might, for what I know, deny that an "object" like that is a painting at all. I'm still a bit surprised though, that this view has been (as far as I can see) more or less blindly accepted here. ΑΩ (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what sense I should make out of all of this, and why you are posting this on my talk page?????? Arnoutf (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're an administrator. And I'm strongly suggesting that User: Research Method has been vandalizing the Painting article. Whatever his motivation may be, the destructiveness of his act seems so obvious, to me anyway, that I suspect I'll merely be vasting my time by entering into any kind of dialogue with him. So, in my view, if no administrative action can be taken against him, I find it most sensible to leave the Painting article "as is": A vandalized article. ΑΩ (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator (but an experienced editor). And even if I were an admin, you should file an official complaint here or any of the other abuse reporting / noticeboard places.
Canvassing my personal talk page because of my previous involvement in the painting article would only introduce me as a party with a certain stake in this proces. I think you should be looking for an admin without prior involvement in the article (that why we have these reporting places and noticeboards). Arnoutf (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I came to think that you actually were an administrator (when I made some edits to that article some months ago). Whatever the reason, it would seem this was not the right place for my message then. Sorry.
I have made no official complaints before. But perhaps this could turn out to be the right occasion, for finding out how it works. ΑΩ (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Amerike

There are certainly no hard feelings, although the comment "claims to be a newcomer" is a bit puzzling. I do disagree with you concerning the inclusion of the Amerike theory, though you will note I have only edited it the once and have no intention of doing so again if others believe I am wrong. As for biting newbies, I appreciate your concern. I may be a newbie on wiki, but I've been on this earth long enough to take certain comments with a pinch of salt. I'm too old and laid back to let anything get under my skin. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did'n't check your edit history when I originally wrote that, did now; you are indeed a newcomer ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid dissociation constant

If you could weigh in on Petergans recent behavior with the article that would be great. If you look at the history and the talk page, you should be able to get a good idea of what has gone on.--Jorfer (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that general discussion is not what I meant. I wanted you to comment specifically on Petergan's removal of wording I included to broaden access, on what seems to me to be his use of an anonymous IP as a hostile sockpuppet, and on his strikethrough edit. I didn't want the appearance of slanting the discussion by including my point of view in the above post, but it is apparently needed to be clear on the problem.--Jorfer (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a reply to your comment at Talk:Acid dissociation constant. Petergans (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late Happy New Year !

Dear Arnoutf, I wish you as a fellow EU editor a successful, healthy and happy new year. I hope you keep up expanding high quality EU content at Wikipedia while also maintaining achieved standards. Keep up motivating others to contribute or to correct EU-European content. Viva Europa Lear 21 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hhh...Mr Arnoutf what you mean about my correct and completly revised edits ??? its the best article to put in the Netherlands to that comparable of England, if you let it like that I think it is one of the shortest articles about countries. Meanwhile, if you remove my articles, why you removed the recently changed country in place of part, we all know that Netherlands is a country not a "stupid part" like many people do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the level of your english text above..... Did you write these sections yourself?? If not, it is plagiarism. And please sign Arnoutf (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely yes, and which level I got bad to receive such critics ? to be clear I edited the articles with some friends, and more: I think the article about the Netherlands are very short and need more attention from wikipedians,
All best attentions, thanks. --Historian19 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 (talk • contribs)
The article about the Netherlands is fairly long, with 74 kb. Wikipedia:Article size says that articles (as a rule of thumb) should stay below 60kb. So I totally disagree with your judgement that it is too short.
I do agree it needs to be improved, but to be honest, I think the History section is about the best part of the article, the rest needs much more attention. And recall, even for those other sections, more is not better! Arnoutf (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure, good attention from your part, I hope one day seeing my article here, but as you said, it is a long one; meantime mate, are you a Dutchman ? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup I'm Dutch, and what do you mean "my article" please read WP:OWN. Arnoutf (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its better to say our article, as I explain you previously, I dont edited it myself, but with help; we are a kinda of non-official editors, and I think we do all our best to improve this article concerning the Netherlands, No ?
PS: I lived there for monthes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's our article indeed, the idea is that editing is a cooperative action in the Wikipedia community. Arnoutf (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.89.156 (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the user on the last post section ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem?

Could not you see that the section was bullshit? There were no wikis and it was not good for the Wikipedia standards. If you want to help Wikipedia, welcome, but do not accuse me for something that you have only in your head. Now the section is ok, since it has wikis and its perfect. Please do not create negative mood here.-- MacedonianBoy  Oui? 12:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chill down, I agree the section was bad, but that was because it was added by another editor, we reverted it to the original version with all the wikilinks.
My problem is not with you personally, but with overtemplating in article space, which I think is creating a negative mood all-over the project. Arnoutf (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I saw the article without wikis so that's why I added the template. Regards-- MacedonianBoy  Oui? 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why you remove those articles ?

That removal was unecessary, not about the history category, but the other categories and more, like pictures that were removed too. please explain this. Historian19 18:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss on the relevant talk page where I did give my arguments already. Arnoutf (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but that isn't enough for me as an editor who have to edite and care about more than twelve articles a day, dont forget, maintaining is one of the proncipal things here on Wikipedia, so please if there is a true problem, then you can talk, but if all is clear, I don't see why a removal nearly identifiable as vandalism is encountered Historian19 19:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling my argued removal of unsourced sections going against WP:Article length vandalism is a show of not assuming good faith.
You don't HAVE to edit any article. Any effort here is voluntarily. Arnoutf (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article Netherland now is in perfect form, take a look at it, one of the best articles about European countries. Fine Job.Historian19 00:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands

Then please help revert the article back prior to when Historian19 starting adding bulk material to it. I have found that this material is being copied word for word from Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Thanks Hmains (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it simple - It would be Copyvio and hence vandalism. Arnoutf (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a true strange thing: I think I was very clear about owning those edits as because I edited them with all copyrights. Historian19 15:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much evidence against that - whole sentence are verbatim identical to copyrighted material; you just saying that is no longer enough, you now need to prove you do indeed have copyright on the texts. Arnoutf (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what does Kingdom of the Netherlands got to do with dutch empire if people want to check out the dutch empire they can check out thereselfs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuretin (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

those kind of questions should be asked at the relevant talk pages, not at my talk. What they have to do with each other. The Netherlands is the European part of the Kingdom and as such the core of the Empire. The current Kingdom of the Netherlands is the European part of the Kingdom and the Dutch Antilles, previously part of the empire. Arnoutf (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibid

It has stopped some days ago. Rich Farmbrough, 23:56 21 January 2009 (UTC).

tnx; I did not realize yet Arnoutf (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate

note that 3RR does not apply for vandalism and reverting the deletion of unsourced text, especially AFTER references have been repeatedly and explicitly asked for on the talk page can be considered vandalism. I'll leave if for now, but without a reference the text has to go; and will go. Arnoutf (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was very nice of you. And ...

actually we have an article on Kerststol...

Cheers

Warrington (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state I was never out there to incite an edit war. AND COOL, there is an article on Kersstol; Dutch Cuisine is making a mark after all ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are doing our best for the Dutch cuisine :). No, of course not, and you were right about it. That damn ham and goose came from this article, Christmas dinner, the Dutch dinner there, somebody were adding it there.

Warrington (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's gone there as well by now, thanks to DrMies. Sometimes investing in de-escalation is workig out very well (sadly not always); I was wrong escalating at first, but all of you have shown very good spirits after that. I really hope to meet you again in other edits as well as ChildofMidnigth and DrMies in future collaboration; resolving differences of opinion with this little hard feeings is (sadly) rare in my experience; thanks for taking it all so well. Arnoutf (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are quite cute too. Now that you got into in this Dutch cuisine business , could you take a look at the Dutch cuisine’s Chocolate section? How about naming some more Dutch chocolate types, Droste chocolate types, other brands or whatever you can think of?

See you

Warrington (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will have a look at the chocolate soon. Dutch chocolate is less famous compared to Belgium chocolate though. Arnoutf (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Show you DrMies last comments, is for you too, what do you think?

Well, perhaps turkey is in. I have not found a source that absolutely confirms it, but this suggests it's well possible to think of turkey as more or less traditional Christmas fare. More later. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny (perhaps Arnout will get a kick out of this): Jan Cremer has a kerstdiner with gans in De Hunnen and one with kalkoen in Ik Jan Cremer. There are no hits in Gbooks for kerstdiner and ham, so that's a relief. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jan Cremer is a bit of a famous author ; indeed funny ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let´s not copmare it than...:) But The Dutch do have a big international contribution to modern chocolate bars and chocola drink.

Warrington (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warrington (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Vital Articles

Hi, great to see some more interest. Since it's still pretty new, most of the project's subpages aren't complete yet, and articles aren't all tagged for categorization, but hopefully everything should really get going soon enough. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention it, I had in mind keeping High, Mid, and Low-importance as importance ratings for the project... see the assessment department for details (it'll be created in a few minutes). If that doesn't make sense, it's open to discussion, but I think it makes sense to keep separate ratings for articles in the vital 100, 1000, and 10000. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind; responded to at the project's talk page. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, will post this at project as well) Fair enough, but considering the multi million articles on Wikipedia, and the many articles at Top importance I would personally list the top 100 as OVER THE TOP important, the top 1000 as TOP important, and the top 1001-10000 as HIGH importance. I would not go lower then that (consider that ALL articles are potentially within the scope of this project and the top 10000 is less than 0.5% of the eligible project (assuming en.wikipedia has 2 Million articles)). Arnoutf (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not every article that has been tagged as part of WikiProject Vital Articles should be tagged as Top importance. Articles within the project have to be given an importance relative to each other. Just because they are "Vital Articles" does not mean they automatically get Top importance within that WikiProject. – PeeJay 22:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, in my view all articles in the project (at least the top 1000 list) is of top importance to Wikipedia; albeit not necessarily to the project. Importance labelling in thia specific project will be very tricky. as we have to find a good way forward. Arnoutf (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the Vital Articles aren't of Top importance to Wikipedia as a whole, but to say that Association football or FIFA World Cup are of the utmost importance within a group of Vital articles is lunacy. – PeeJay 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is the distinction this project has to solve. It is not an easy choice aiming within the project, or at WP as a whole (the target of this specific project). My personaly preference would be to circumvent this difficult and inheretly subjective issue by removing the importance parameter from the templaye (as many projects do). Arnoutf (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Genetics

In light of the concerns you raised on Dutch people, I think you might be interested in overlooking the discussion at Talk:Germanic peoples that has been going on the last few days. Not sure if it is an ongoing discussion or not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]