User talk:Prinsgezinde: Difference between revisions

I see that you've been making some constructive edits, as well as fighting vandalism and original research. So, I wanted to get your talk page going, and officially welcome you. If you have any questions, please, don't hesitate to ask! Good job on what you've done already. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The

Adventure

Hi Prinsgezinde!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Historical revisionism (negationism) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Historical revisionism (negationism) was changed by Prinsgezinde (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.958722 on 2015-03-11T23:44:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such as "far right" are generally considered to be "opinions" about people which must be sourced and cited as opinions. Claims made in Wikipedia's voice as fact must be particularly strongly sourced, which the single article does not meet for Pamela Geller. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bruce Wasserstein page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I'm not trying to stop you editing the article Yahweh - I'm genuinely uncertain what you want in some areas, and not convinced by your reading of the source on Yahweh's uniqueness to Israel/Judah. Please let us discuss this on the Talk page. 06:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Batavi (Germanic tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Specifically, 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is under WP:1RR restriction.

Please follow WP:BRD and discuss the changes you would like to perform on the talk page. “WarKosign” 12:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to do that if you edited it again. I know about the 3 strike rule. But the first time I linked the wrong policy and so it was possibly you'd change your mind the second time. But I understand you are not an administrator - correct me if I'm wrong? I'm wondering if perhaps you would acknowledge your possible WP:COI as well. I myself have little to do with the subject, and I simply found a section that was lending undue balance (in violation of WP:VALID) to a reader's view that was quite bold and stated its opinion as a fact. Remember that for bold claims, reliable sources are needed, or they will appear to be WP:FRINGE. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin and never claimed I was. Lying about being an admin is a serious violation of rules. Most admins provide a link to some tool that lets you ensure they have this status.

WP:1RR is not a 3 strike rules. On all the wikipedia pages it's forbidden to revert more than 3 times on the same page within 24 hours, but on articles about sensitive subjects the limit is lowed to 1 revert. Note that it's not quite defined what constitutes a revert - technically removal of any single letter can be considered a revert, but usually people are more sane than that. Also note that admins may decide that a person is edit warring and ban them for less than that or if the reverts are more than 24 hours apart ("a slow-going edit war").

Even when these rules are kept, it's much more civil to follow WP:BRD. If you made a change and it was challenged, however wrong you think the challenger is, clarify the issue on the talk page before re-doing your change. Maybe you will come with a solution that would be satisfactory to both of you, or maybe more editors will support your position, or maybe they'll convince you why what you are doing is wrong.

The alert I posted above is a notice for you about special status of Israeli-Palestininan articles, but also a technicality - now you can't claim that you are were not aware of special status of these articles. It's important that you familiarize yourself with the rules so you can follow them. The most important rule is staying civil and assuming good faith, especially when you are dealing with people you consider dead wrong.“WarKosign” 17:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI lists many possible reasons to consider an editor has a conflict of interest - such as being paid to edit, etc. Read Wikipedia:An interest is not a conflict of interest. If you believe I have a COI, please explain. “WarKosign” 15:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, and I'm not starting a case against you or anything. You're not breaking any rules after all. I'm just notifying you of the possibility that you may be too close to the subject to adequately stay neutral. It is Wikipedia standard that we should rather not actively focus on articles where we could "esteem too highly their own reliability". Your own state is at war - more or less - and that's common to have some sort of effect on one's views. It's up to you to decide how much you feel unaffected by that. I refer to WP:BESTCOI. In our case it may have been WP:ASSERT too.

Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. I find it hard to imagine a person who edits any article in the Israel-Palestine area and doesn't have some notion about the conflict. There are plenty of editors with opinions supporting each of the sides. Worst case scenario is an editor who has an opinion but believes themselves to be neutral - these people push their biased opinions the hardest, insisting they are fighting for NPOV. I openly admit I have opinions and don't mind sharing them, but I do not edit to reinforce my opinions, I edit to represents all the opinions equally, including ones that I oppose and consider false. I rarely actually add these statements, there is more than enough other editors that do that. “WarKosign” 17:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Prinsgezinde. I've reverted the edit you made to the article on the Spanish civil as, whilst it could be interesting to incorporate into the article's body, it probably doesn't belong in the lead section. The name "The Spanish Holocaust" is a title of a book rather than a commonly used name for the Spanish Civil War, I'm sure you will acknowledge. You say that it's become recently internationally recognised as such, but one respected author's view cannot be considered as such. You might want to take a look at WP:BOLDTITLE and WP:NPOV. Thanks. --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. First of all, thank you for assuming good faith. I of course see your point about it being mostly just one book (one of the references I linked to, however, described at least one or two earlier Spanish books with such an allegation, and so the claim is not entirely new). And yet I've seen the book be almost unanimously praised by both history professors in detailed reviews and scholars in estimates of the value of the contents of this book alike, and, given the context, the term seemed to honor their attempt to make a statement with the book's title. Along with the sources I provided Paul Preston's reputation and findings have been acclaimed, as I meant to say, internationally, for example: "Paul Preston is a renowned historian, and is considered one of the world's leading experts on 20th-century Spanish history. His book on the genocidal actions taken against Spanish civilians between 1936 and 1945 is an important resource that has changed historiography on the period."Review Institute of Historical Research I understand the lingering sensitivity with the term though, so naturally I should have included something reflecting this (same reviewer): "Can what happened in Spain be classified as genocide? Preston argues that yes it must, but clearly stated that he did not mean to equate the Nazi Holocaust and Spanish genocide. He chose to use the term holocaust so that discussion in a ‘comparative context’ can occur (p. xii)."

What seems clear to me is that several prominent Spanish Historians see this piece as perhaps the most important and precise of all the accounts written on it, and I don't think we disagree over it being a valid source (the book), do we? I see we're also using three of his earlier books so at least that's no issue. I simply don't have that much time to read through it all though, as much as I'd like to. I likely would've tried to post something a bit more elaborate and nuanced. Is it perhaps something you'd like to do? (if you agree with the source being relevant, that is).

In the end I just want an article that makes sure the truth won't be forgotten, whatever that may be. Reading about such things as "the goal of the perpetrators was to exterminate the entire left – of which the targets included various groups, from feminists to vegetarians (p. 37) to ‘Socialists, trade unionists, Republican officials and schoolteachers’ (p. 204)", should evoke familiar feelings in a lot of people. "Pregnant women were abused, raped, shot. Women with children were tortured in freezing prison cells with little to no food, water, medicine or even proper bedding." Perhaps a very detailed section on war crimes is necessary...

Thanks.

Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes, I do not dispute the reliability of the source and I definitely think it should find its way into the article somewhere. Seems likes a very interesting book. However, I don't think it is, to quote WP:BOLDTITLE, a "widely accepted name for the subject". Just a simple Google search of the title turns up only the book itself. I think to include something in the title itself you would have to have many other eminent historians using the terminology over a period of years. I would definitely suggest you try to incorporate it elsewhere, as I say – though I am certainly not the right person to do it with my limited knowledge of the Spanish Civil War! Cheers. --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then it's settled Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meir Kahane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BeenAroundAWhile. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Jeju uprising, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you revert sourced material, be sure you look at the sources first, and tell how you found that the material in the sources was not what the original editor thought it was. It would be better to take any new findings, if you have them, to the Talk page first. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-abolitionist riots (1834). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our article Negro:

A specifically female form of the word negress (sometimes capitalized) was sometimes used; but, like Jewess, it has all but completely fallen from use.

There is no reason to use outdated language in a 21st-century encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another had made the bold revert, I reverted it according to the rules - why are you sending this to me? If you think it's outdated doesn't that mean you should put it on the talk page? I'd be more than happy to settle it but this was just done out of nowhere. The guy's edit summary was:

really? fucking REALLY??

What am I to make of this?

Wilhelmus Prinsgezind BATAAF VAN ORANJE 22:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the text was changed two years ago without explanation. As I wrote when I reverted your edit yesterday, "Negress" is an outdated word that isn't generally used in 2015.

If you'd like, we can move this discussion to the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what it has to do with your double mention of the term "Jewess ". In regards to the mention of that unrelated word the revert could have been seen as a personal preference for censorship instead of a concern related to the alleged use of outdated language. I have neither arguments nor conviction whatsoever that favor the term "Negress", besides the reasoning that it was used in the original source and that it had previously remained undisputed. Therefore I must confess that I in fact care little at all what will end up being written on the page. I just aim to take a stance against censorship if (and only if) it appears to happen for no productive reason. If you remain convinced that within this article "black woman" is favorable to "Negress", I assure you I will not object.

Wilhelmus Prinsgezind BATAAF VAN ORANJE 18:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Prinsgezinde! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:50, Thursday, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ethio-Somali War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Offensive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm This lousy T-shirt. Your recent edit to the page Yanakie, Victoria 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. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Invasion of Grenada. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Blackguard 06:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Franks, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Takeaway (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Abzu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ma

Convention of Kanagawa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Shimoda

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your recent edit to Elon Musk as it introduced factual inaccuracies. Please check the references before making such significant edits. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1994 civil war in Yemen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page YSP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ �� Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:BLPLEAD. "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Why did you think it was important to describe Max Frankel in the lead as a Jewish-American journalist? His notability comes from his position at The New York Times, not his religious heritage.

Also, I don't know what makes you think this is a reliable source. It isn't. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Germany's Western Front: Translations from the German Official History of the Great War, 1915: 2 You might find the introduction by Hew Strachan on the reliability of Der Weltkrieg [2] interesting. There are other commentaries on the reliability of British History of the Great War and French Official histories in The Killing Ground: the British Army, the Western Front and the Emergence of Modern Warfare, 1900–1918 27 Sep 2003 by Tim Travers and Writing the Great War: Sir James Edmonds and the Official Histories, 1915–1948 (Military History and Policy) 12 Aug 2004 by Andrew Green. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of being a POV pusher, and if necessary please give a more detailed remark on the talk page of the article. Looking over the comments you made so far you are possibly mixing up the citations about the Menapii with those about the Sicambri? Please look at it slowly first. The sources clearly normally place the Sicambri in what is now Germany, and only in one incident during the times of Caesar are they reported as a MOVING group who crossed over towards the modern Netherlands. I think the wordings I accepted already are therefore really stretching the facts already. In any case, you have made a LOT of edits which are all clearly making far too much of modern countries, and arguably in an anti-German and anti-Belgian way. These are articles about ancient peoples who are now reasonably mysterious. The remarks about modern borders should only be there to help people understand the geography involved. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you have made about 25 edits to the article, almost all of which did not privide any sources and many of which drastically changed against what was previously there. I am tempted to remove everything you have added to the article and revert any changes that did not provide any sources for (meaning all but around 2). You have claimed this article as your own, censuring anything you don't like to be in it. I have not seen you start any discussion over your edits, yet my reasonable revert is clearly unacceptable. Don't tu quoque me for what happened on entirely different articles, take that over there. Nearly every article says Germanic, please tell me what's anti-German about pointing out a tribe is part of a country's history. Dutch sources support this feeling. I have never made an anti-Belgian edit, and it seems you are the one currently assuming "anti-"s from me. The only one who claimed it was a Germany-residing tribe were you, after making two drastic edits to the article that went from "Netherlands" to "Netherlands, close to Germany" to "Germany". Without sources and with weasel words such as "many historians agree with me", this can quickly be reverted. Let me show you for example why everyone else feels the tribe lived in the modern day Netherlands:

Caesar commented that "these men are born for war and raids". "No swamp or marsh will stop them". After the raid on the Eburones they moved on against the Romans. They destroyed some of Caesar's units, in revenge for his campaign against them, and when the remains of the legion withdrew into the city Atuatuca, the Sicambri went back across the Rhine. Claudius Ptolemy located the Sicambri, together with the Bructeri Minores, at the most northern part of the Rhine and south of the Frisii who inhabit the coast north of the river. Strabo located the Sicambri next to the Menapii, “who dwell on both sides of the river Rhine near its mouth, in marshes and low thorny woods. It is opposite to these Menapii that the Sicambri are situated".

This seems more than enough. And please don't go and argue now that the Rhine mouth into the North Sea is actually in Germany. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been asked for sources for anything specific, but for sure let's improve this article. I have no problem using Dutch sources. I live in Flanders BTW. Just looking at the sources in our article:

• Caesar says they came over the Rhine in order to get in the fights you mention. He reports that the Menapii's range at his time was all the way to the conjunction of the Rhine and Maas, so all the way to Germany apparently.
• Ptolemy is known to be confused for this region but his northernmost part of the Rhine is normally thought to refer to the area where the Rhine turns west, in modern Germany. This corresponds to where the Sicambri are reported in other sources.
• Strabo describes them as Germanic, and that beyond them are the Suevi and other peoples. That puts them in Germany.
• Have a look where the Lippe river is on the map.
• Here is a Dutch source already being cited. (I think I inserted it.) http://books.google.be/books?id=6HCeJU_7SFwC&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false They are pretty clearly in modern Germany?
• Strabo describes them as Germanic, and that beyond them are the Suevi and other peoples.

By the way, should we move this to the article talk page? Please feel free to move my posts, or copy them, to there. Or let me know if I can do it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have copied this to article talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Salian Franks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dutch

Weisse Frauen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dutch

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prinsgezinde. This is in relation to your recent posts on the page Christadelphians and your reverting of edits. I have been monitoring this edit war. I too had an issue with your content appearing in the introduction as it is not general information however very specific (As a Christadelphian I have never heard of this teaching). Although this discussion may have appeared in some of these sources, it is simply not significant enough to be put into the introduction. I assume good faith. Please only address this issue in the 'Differences With Mainstream Christianity' section as this is a more relevant section for you to raise your information. As a consequence, I have reverted your edit to original (for the second time). I propose there be a constructive discussion on the talk page for the article. I have already started a section on this and have spoken with other editors who agree your additions, whilst valuable, are not appropriate for the introduction. Please revert the 'edit war' and relevant discussion to the talk page and not in the edits. Let's work on building consensus.Lintonna (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lucretia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of Lucretia,' ca. 1500-1501, Sandro Botticelli, [[Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum]], Boston]]</ref>]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yopie (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yopie, please stop defacing my talk page. You are not an administrator and can not block me simply because my edits conflicted with yours. You were in the wrong multiple times when you seemed to have forgotten that disambiguation pages are meant to be unsourced (though not unencyclopedic). I reverted them back because your reasoning was insufficient or nonexistant. Equally, misinterpreting rules to threaten or belittle other (more recent) users is a sign of wikibullying. See also: WP:ROWN. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? When did I defame a living person's wikipage? When I made a small but accurate edit on the page of a many-hundreds-of years old king? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure, that calling Beatrice de Gelder a animal castrator was OK?--Yopie (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, now I understand you. I am sorry for that, I hadn't noticed my copypasting mistake (the page previously said a "Gelder is someone who castrates animals". I do wish, though, that you had assumed good faith. It was not my intention, and I would have changed it had you notified me. I do fail to see how it was that insulting, but inaccurate is indeed wrong. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per 3RR - please take any additional recommendations for inclusion of information related to Hit during the Iraq War to the talk page. The information you are including was not agreed upon in previous discussions in the merge. The consensus was minimal inclusion as mentioned in the talk page. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brittenburg, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Celtic, Gaelic and Dunrobin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Holodomor are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the style but you are removing important info. Kerry's sole claim to being (and official designation as) a Catholic, given his Jewish paternal grandparents and Protestant mother, rests with his grandparents' alleged conversion, which made his father supposedly Catholic. I will revert unless you can address this. Thanks. Quis separabit? 02:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that and tried not to tamper with it, but as you may know being Jewish is (or, can be) both ethnicly and religiously. Often it is mentioned when parents were Jewish immigrants from Europe in the early to mid 20th century because European anti-semitism was a very common reason for US migration. I found the part about conversion a bit too religion-focused and apologetic (as if it "cleansed" them), when heritage can carry through religion. It was me being WP:BOLD, though, so go ahead and revert it if you deem it more accurate. I see your point.Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a nominal Jew myself, I can attest that you are correct regarding religion, culture and ethnicity. You are clearly a gifted editor. I would rather not undo your thoughtful edits. Can you try to use the points here to reword so as to do justice to both of our rationales? Thanks. Quis separabit? 12:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good sir. I strive for accuracy. I myself have part Jewish ancestry (but did not find out until much later), so I somewhat know how complex the designation can be. I will review my edit and try to give more - rather than less - information on the respective subject. Mazel tov Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say that someone is mentally ill (eg paranoid and delusional) even on a talk page without sources, please avoid that in the future. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I have a mental disorder and know he shows symptoms of one? The entire page right now feels like an attack page so I find that bizarre. Media goes on a hunt for mental illnesses as soon as a non-Arabian man crashes a plane. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can't diagnose article subjects even if we are psychiatrists. Doug Weller (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now see which phrase you specifically referred to. Note, however, that a delusion is commonly 'a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary', and paranoia: 'typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself'. I disagree with the notion that my designations were specifically diagnosing a mental illness in him. Someone can be overly anxious, for example, without having an anxiety disorder. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, our WP:BLP policy also applies to talk pages. Doug Weller (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leads are a summary of the article, see WP:LEAD. Removing the word hoax from the lead means that the lead no longer reflects the article fully. You really need to read WP:NPOV and in particular WP:FRINGE. The lead should make it clear that this is considered by modern scholarship to be a hoax. Doug Weller (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you even talking about? This is a case of Wikilawyering, as any Wikipedian knows that plenty of excellent lead sections do not merely summarize the article. Furthermore, read WP:LABEL to see why the use of the word "hoax" is strongly discouraged. I've been here for just a few months, is it really necessary to be so disparaging in your criticism? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dougweller is referring to Oera Linda Book. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Oera_Linda_BookIt is true that many articles do not have lead sections that are summaries, but they should have so, and we should all be working to make them good summaries, especially on the English Wikipedia which has many long and detailed articles.(In contrast to the Dutch Wikipedia) Also, if you are new to Wikipedia then I think you better listen very well to prolific experienced members in good standing like Dougweller. Andries (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, you have a point. Doug Weller, thank you for the advice. Excuse my snappy response, I forgot about WP:GOODFAITH. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No problem. Different Wikipedias have different cultures and policies - policy differences along can be surprising. Doug Weller (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teutons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broda can u plz add world heritage site in nepal Prajanya77 (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link the website? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Destruction of the Library of Alexandria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auxiliary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who take the liberty to stay - I prefered that red ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Porfirio Díaz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campesinos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You undid a year-old edit of mine with the summary "Rv vandalism". If you'd looked, you would have seen that I was responding to long-term POV-pushing. Recent users accusing long-term Wikipedians of vandalism tends not to end well. Reverting year-old edits to atrociously sourced contentious articles also does not end well, as a rule. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]