Hello, Hendrick 99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
You expressed some valid points in your markup of Christianity and violence. Tryptofish seemed to agree with some of them. If you still have concerns about the article bias, please continue to either re-edit or re-tag the article with {{tag|reason=citation does not match this material}} or whatever, so that other editors (including Tryptofish) can understand your concerns. Or discuss them in detail on the talk pages. Tryptofish is a long-time editor, but that doesn't necessarily make you wrong! :) Wish I could help! Student7 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hendrick99. What is the purpose of changing the phrasing of article content while adding tags for clarification and explanation to your own change? Why not simply add the tags to the original content or, an even better idea, address the problem(s) you perceive? The article is on the good articles list and truly deserves a more comprehensive approach than I see in your edit. Tiderolls05:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I thought that the section was a bit biassed towards the 'malay language expansion' movement in Brunei. It is not a universally supported opinion, the whole 'lingual purity' thingy, so it shouldn't be treated as such. I was just trying to maintain the NPOV. I'm guessing you know more about the specifics than I do, and if you can neutrally state everything without the tags, it would be nice. Hendrick 99 (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My curiosity regards your action, not the article content. I took for granted you had concerns with the content or you wouldn't have edited the article. However, you altered the content and tagged the content as being unclear. Why would you add unclear content? Additionally, if you have concerns regarding the reliability of a source you might consider bringing your concerns up at the Reliable sources noticeboard to determine if there is consensus for your opinion. Tiderolls07:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was making it sound less biassed, but I tagged parts that still were biassed, needed clarification, and had questionable sources I used less biassed words, but the content was the same, so I tagged it as such. I suppose it is a bit hard to explain, though. Hendrick 99 (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jammu & Kashmir
Hi, I thought to let you know that only Urdu is the official language of Jammu & Kashmir (Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, Art. 145); other languages (Hindi, Dogri, Kashmiri, Ladakhi, Pahari, etc.) are considered "regional languages". Regards, kashmiriTALK10:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
You have removed Bangla language from official status in Andaman and Nicobar Islands on 19:01, 6 June 2013 UTC. is a false activity, please pre-check before saving! Bangla is a primary and official language in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Thank you
Hello, I'm Faizan. Your recent edit to the page Punjabi language appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please stop adding "Indian English" templates on the articles. You add them to irrelevant articles too. Stop this type of disruptive editing, otherwise you may be blocked.Faizan09:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been fixing broken URLs in citations recently, and I have found a few in which people have done a find-and-replace on an entire article, replacing each instance of "Rs" with {{Indian rupee}}. If you do this within a citation, you are likely to break the citation's url, make the |title= parameter inaccurate, or both. This happened in the Poverty in India article, leading to errors in the citations. Please be careful. Thanks again for your contributions. Jonesey95 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, usually when people find a formatting problem with an edit, they revert the whole thing; I really appreciate your not doing that and thanks for informing me.Hendrick 99 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you on the ground in Scotland with a strong corporate legal background? If RBS got into trouble would a Scottish or English court administer it? more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_systemically_important_banks#RBS_country_Scotland_or_UK.3F
I'm neither Scottish or English and have absolutely zero "skin in this game". However it would be great to be correct as to who actually oversees the legal rights of RBS shareholders, bondholders, creditors, etc. during times of substantial (perhaps even systemic) trouble? Rick (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hendrik 99. I note you recently created Category:Socialist Organisations in India and have been changing various articles on Indian political organisations to put them in this category. Can I suggest you please stop doing this, and undo your changes? The category you have created is problematic in a number of ways, most importantly because you have created it as a subcategory of Category:Political parties in India, but not all "organisations" and political parties. A more general category should never be a subcategory of a more specific one. Another problem is that the category has incorrect capitalization; this is a nuisance to fix. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that 'socialism' tends to be a broader term that 'communism', and tends to imply pro-welfare sentiment, whilst 'communism' is the end goal of most maxist societies, denoting a type of hypothetical stateless society (though not anarchy). But in some right-wing US media (such as FOX news, the Republican party's propaganda organisation), they are often portrayed as synonyms in order to antagonise group's calling themselves 'socialist'.Hendrick 99 (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are certainly two possible categorizations, but my point is that neither one nor the other (nor even others, for that matter) is universally accepted. Even some of the parties that you're dealing with here would disagree with how you've categorized them. (For example, the World Socialist Party of India considers itself to be both socialist and communist, since it regards those terms as synonyms.) How are political parties for other countries categorized on Wikipedia? Is it usually the case that the "communist" ones are a subcategory of the "socialist" ones? If not then I'd suggest making both Category:Socialist parties in India and Category:Communist parties in India subcategories of Category:Political parties in India. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, there are socialist parties who say they aren't communist, but there aren't communist parties who call themselves non-socialist. maybe if we find one like that, though one which uses the term communism in its common mainstream sense.
A couple of days ago you provided a valuable addition to the article on Wage labour in which you used the {{Harvnb}} template in the added references.
As the template is meant to be used (see Template:Harvard citation no brackets/doc) each use should have a corresponding referable-to citation further on. For example, {{Harvnb|Hallgrimsdottir|Benoit|2007}} has a matching citation in the bibliography, in this case of a journal article. However, the uses in your references (Thompson 1966, Ostergaard 1997, Lazonick 1990) have no corresponding citations, which makes it hard for the reader to find the precise source. Would it be possible for you to add these? --Lambiam20:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neoconservatism
I take offense at your statement "Reverting POV edit. Neoconservatism does NOT only refer to American neoconservatism. (see British neoconservatism)" here. Did you even read my edit summary? It said "Undid revision 593234325 by Hendrick 99 (talk) per WP:MDP, "Title" should never redirect to "Title (disambiguation)"; you can propose to move the disambig page instead" How does that conceivably express a "POV" about American or British or any other kind of neoconservatism? NO PAGE should ever redirect to its own title followed by "(disambiguation)" no matter what the topic is. Please stop and think before acting. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but it is POV to assert that ONLY American neoconservatism is important. Neoconservatism exists elsewhere too. Listen, I have no interest in getting into silly edit wars. I would rather we just edit in an NPOV way. Hendrick 99 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WHERE THE F did I assert that "ONLY American neoconservatism is important"??? I DID NOT SAY THAT. DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Read what I actually wrote, and then please be so kind as to comment on what I wrote and not on what you are imagining. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not edit warring; I haven't reverted any of your second round of edits, even though I disagree with them. My concern is with WP:MDP. That page explains that it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's naming policies to have a page with an unqualified title, like "Neoconservatism", redirect to the same title with the "(disambiguation)" qualifier appended to it. This has nothing to do with the subject matter; it is a matter of organization and consistency. However, there is an underlying problem, which I also noted above, of the 500+ other articles that currently link to "Neoconservatism" and now have to be changed. I hope you are planning on working through those quickly. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are redirecting articles to Neoconservatism (disambiguation), then you are creating a new problem. It sounds like a WP:DABCONCEPT to me. In other words, there is some general concept of "neoconservatism" of which American neoconservatism and British neoconservatism are both examples, and we should have an article about the general concept. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good idea. I don't like the idea of so many pages redirecting to a disambiguation page. We should try and create one (a general page). Hendrick 99 (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense, and I would suggest drafting this page first, and then proposing to move the draft to the current title, and the current article to a revised title on that basis. bd2412T14:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually decided not to get involved with articles dominated by US neoconservatives. When the system is rigged to ensure that the biased title stands, NPOV editors really can't do much. Maybe if you or User:R'n'B want to try, you can. Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Neoconservatism has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion. Please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. bd2412T14:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Airports in Shanghai until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Zanhe (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (History of cinema in the United States) has been reviewed!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrastructure and economics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PanchoS (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overview of 21st century propaganda until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PanchoS (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (History of human migration) has been reviewed!
Wikipedia editor PanchoS just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Please finish what you started and don't leave all these split articles in an orphaned state, nor leave us with all the cleanup work.
The topic is fine but please recover, merge back or write a history section on Human migration. Thanks.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Happiness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Myers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allow RfC before redirect, or redirect immediately
Dear Hendrick 99
It is my belief that other editors should be able to voice their opinion in the RfC before deciding whether to redirect (Capitalist mode of production to Capitalism#As a mode of production). Not least so they can see the article in question without digging in the history. I disagree with you wanting to action this immediately.
Note, here I am not arguing whether the article should be redirected or not. Rather, that others editors should be included in the decision via the RfC process.
@Jonpatterns: When there are two articles on virtually the same topic, and one of them is struggling with citations and POV issues, it's apparent that a redirect is necessary. If enough users demand it, let's take the issue of whether we need a separate article on the topic to Wikipedia:Third opinion, and in the meanwhile keep the redirect, as it immensely improves the article quality for readers. If a majority of editors believes there should be a separate article, one should be drafted from an NPOV perspective, but the section on Capitalism should probably be maintained as it is currently. Thanks. Hendrick 99 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. You appear to be engaged in a move war over whether to redirect Capitalist Mode of Production to Capitalism. Please also be aware that a move or redirect dispute is not vandalism, and to label it as vandalism is a personal attack.Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The standard in Wikipedia for naming by IUPAC conventions does not justify renaming that article. The article was specified as using US-English, which you changed. Please read:
Specifically, "These spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article.". Aluminum can is not a chemistry-related article. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acquisition. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
File permission problem with File:Rohit Sahgal Ogilvy CH.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rohit Sahgal Ogilvy CH.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. January (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop redirecting articles that obviously need to exist
Things like Asset and Economic efficiency are *core* topics, it doesn't matter how bad you think the articles on these subjects is, they absolutely cannot be redirected out of existence, and doing this on your own without discussion is just causing headaches for everyone and not going to stick. Please stop doing this. TiC(talk)06:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion at ANI regarding your recent edits to economics-related articles
There is no plausible good faith rationale for converting labour theory of value into a redirect. It is either a competence question, a POV-pushing question, or a vandalism question. Consider yourself really fucking lucky that I don't have a block button. Do not under any circumstances pull that crap again.Carrite (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Warning about your edits of economics articles
Please see the result of a complaint at WP:ANI about your edits. You seem not to have continued to edit since 25 March, but if this type of thing resumes (mass redirection of important economics articles) you will most likely be blocked. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Natural Selection and competition
Greetings. You recently redirected the article on biological competition to the one on natural selection. Although I appreciate that the reason you gave (lack of sourcing) is a problem, I still don't believe the move was appropriate, because competition is a massively important topic in ecology, with a relevance distinct from its role in evolution. Therefore, I have reverted your merger, and tagged the competition page appropriately. If I find the time I might even fix it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Aoidh (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
I disagree. There are different forms of sharing economies, and traditional forms centre around small-scale person-to-person transactions, distinct from the sort facilitated by companies such as Uber and AirBnB.Hendrick 99 (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - but nobody called any of that stuff a sharing economy. That term developed to described companies like uber and airBnB. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uberisation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Middle man and Uber. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I note that you have stated on your user page that you oppose Wikipedia's copyright policies. Be that as it may, the policies exist, and the copyright laws exist. Please do not make pointy edits removing valid copyright violation templates. If you have a crusade against copyright laws, please carry it out elsewhere. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!11:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hendrick 99. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi! I like a lot the navbox template "Uberization" that you created in 2016. Since then i noticed it change it´s name to "Sharing economy" and it was improved a lot by many editors.
Today I´ve expanded it a little more, and I was wondering what else can we do to make it bigger and link to many other related articles and topics!
I have a great interest in bring this subject closer to people, if you want to talk about it and make a brainstorm, i´ll love it! Ogat (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?
Hello :)
I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.
For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.
I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick surveybefore 8 August 2021.
Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uberisation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
