User talk:Arnoutf/Archives/2016

Canon van Amsterdam
ik snap jouw bezwaar niet tegen de canon. Het is notable, anders zou het niet (meer) in de WP:NL staan, ik heb het artikel vanuit het Nederlands vertaald. Ook is het belangrijk voor het artikel omdat het nogmaals het historisch belang van de VOC voor Amsterdam en Nederland onderstreept. De context werd aan gewerkt voordat je de edit terugdraaide. --Balaam&#39;s Miracle (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Notability at En.wikipedia has higher standards compared to other Wikipedias. Also what is notable in a local context may not be in international context. If you look at the reliable sources relating to the canon (on Google) there are a few local broadcasts. In addition, there are a few blogs, and there is a single book that introduces the canon and hence would be considered a primary source. So notably of the canon for inclusion in En.Wikipedia is not above doubt. However, that is not the main point.


 * While the VOC may be important for Amsterdam, the only reason for adding the canon of Amsterdam to the VOC article would be that the inclusion in that canon is important for understanding the VOC, that is no unduly detailed information to understanding the VOC and that it helps the uninformed reader in a clear way to better understand the topic. I seriously doubt the canon of Amsterdam would do that. It is probably telling that the far more notable and far more relevant Canon of Dutch History (which also lists the VOC) is only used as source and not referred to as such in the article.


 * In any case, content discussion should be conducted in English on the relevant talk page.


 * But let me turn around the question. Why do you add high level (2) sections to many articles without any previous discussion? That implies the Canon of Amsterdam is of equal (or at least similar) hierarchical importance to all other level 2 sections in the article. And why do these sections consist out of only one paragraph, and with that the paragraph only out of 1 sentence (a practice explicitly discouraged MOS:PARAGRAPHS). Do you really think adding such isolated sentences without any logical flow improves the content, readability and prose of the articles? Arnoutf (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The Dutch People
Hello ! I have to buy what you wrote reg. the Dutch people and Flemish people. Was'n aware of the areas you mentioned. However I'm rather uncertain if wwe must go so far back as the Thirty Years' War. The current borders of the Netherlands was set during the Vienna Conferences in 1814 and 1815 (abrupted by Napoleons return as French Emperor, "the 100 Days"). But my main question is - why do we have a Flemish people article separated from the Dutch People. And what differs between these two people. There has to be something, which isn't related to the border only. (Religiously I'm not aware about the Belgian German speaking cities Eupen and Malmedy, - but elsewise isn't Belgium a Catholic country ?). Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Belgium is mainly Catholic, the Netherlands is mixed. The Vienna conference confirmed the earlier 80 years war ending treaty (which coincided with the 30yrs war end). The complicated exclaves / enclaves of Baarle-Hertog Baarle-Nassau (where Dutch enclaves are positioned within Belgian enclaves) can however only be understood from the front lines of 1648.


 * The relation Dutch-Flemish people is complicated though. The whole idea of ethnic groups (with the social self identification element strongly included) is a 19th century invention. At that time the Belgian revolt (against the artificial merger of the Netherlands and Belgium in the Vienna conference) spurred the development of separate identities.


 * In short the differences in people is more from extended differentiation of identity. Netherlands is colonial, seafaring, trading power (from 1600 onwards) while Belgium is a more European focused industrial country. And more poignantly, the Belgium people did not accept a shared Dutch-Belgium government. Not the strongest difference in ethnic background, but still enough to make it sensitive. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose a small difference is sufficient, even though the articles overlaps each other. And if possible I think there is a call for mentioning the small differencies in the lead of both articles. I'm aware of the exclave/enclave area - but all those areas together doesn't involve much land or people. It's quite funny though (in my opinion atleast) a national border can go stight through a house or villa (!) Of cource I'm well aware of the Netherlands as a great power from the 17th Century. But regarding your statement about Belgium as "European focused", must I simply add that people from Congo/(Zaire), Rwanda and Burundi etc may see it differently. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctorate#Professional_doctorate
Greatings. I am writing concerning the following:

09:16, 14 January 2016‎ Arnoutf (talk | contribs)‎. . (82,137 bytes) (-33)‎. . (Reverted good faith edits by 72.207.235.24: Please read the comment --- There are already more than enough examples, we do not claim anything close to an exhaustive list here. (TW)) (undo)

While I certainly see your point and of course will defer to your opion here, I was not trying to make an exhaustive list but rather add variety since all but two (D.S.W and S.J.D) of these professional doctorates are related to medicine/health. Since one of the purposes of giving more than one example is to show a range, I think it could be beneficial to show unrelated fields of expertise to which a professional doctorate can extend, rather than focusing so much on medicine and health. Alternative examples such as Doctor of Ministry, Juris Doctor, Doctor of Architecture, Doctor of Professional Studies, Doctor of Management, etc. could better show such a range.

Again, I defer to your judgement since I am new here, but I would prefer to remove some of the medical/health examples and replace them with other unrealated doctorates such as those I mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.235.24 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that for ages, every body has been putting their own professional doctorate to the list. Even if no single editor creates an exhaustive list, the end result would be the same. In any case, we are open for discussion to add or replace, but as the hidden comment states (which you should have seen in the editing screen) please find agreement on talk of the relevant page before adding this. Arnoutf (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that instead of discussing this on your page, I should have posted on the talk page of the artice itself? When you say "Even if no single editor creates an exhaustive list, the end result would be the same", what do you mean? My argument was for a diversity professional doctorates rather than almost exclusively medical/health examples.


 * On the article talk page indeed. That is where such things should be discussed. And what I meant. I several editors add a single example, the list will still grow to unmanageable proportion. Your argument that you would like to change the list to present a more varied (less medical focused) list does make sense. But then I would rather go for replacing one, than adding one. Further discussion on the doctorate talk page please - as that is open to all involved editors. Arnoutf (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the image on the top of the article about God
Ttt74 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Trust (social sciences)
Hi, I have added content on the "Trust" but you deleted it because you think it is too complex. I just want to know if you can give me more details about your analysis to change it. And for my english level, I am trying my best but I am not fluent english, I am from french but I will try to fixe it. 131.94.186.34 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There were a number of problems with your edits. One is the use of fairly complex scientific terms that we should avoid if at all possible (but to be honest, the section was pretty bad and had many of such terms before you edited as well).


 * A second problem is that you added a lot of very detailed information about relatively small studies. While that would be relevant for a scientific paper literature review (secondary use of data), for Wikipedia it is important to use generally accepted view on a fairly high level of aggregation (tertiary use of data).


 * Finally, you made a lot of edits in one go (although you kindly announced them on talk before). The risk of such a series of major changes in one go is that someone (in this case me), looks at it and decides that altogether it did not really improve the article, but that improving it all to meet quality standards is just too much work (in one go). It is sometimes better to make smaller edits (which you do not need to announce on talk), and wait what happens than try to do everything at once. That said, you did post a proposal on talk well in advance of the actual edits, and nobody responded. So the community did not help you either. Arnoutf (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of DC
Your recent removal of the Doctor of Chiropractic degree from the lede at 'Doctor' here seems inappropriate? You removed DC "because it is only awarded in a few countries", yet you left DPT and PharmD in the lede, which are only found in the US? I would say remove all non-international degrees, or leave them all, but to selectively remove 1 example seems like picking favorites.75.152.109.249 (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I restored th D.C. degree in the lede list. I am perfectly fine with it's removal if all the non-international doctorate degrees are removed. I am also fine with listing every possible doctorate degree from any country, as individuals have historically added their 'pet profession' back into the list anyways and it becomes an endless battle.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:D3:7051:DE4:DD01 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought the removal was appropriate and I have removed this item from the list again. The lead section has a few examples and it will not be helpful to readers if that list becomes exhaustive. There are some other issues specific to the DC degree. For example, in the UK, the professional regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council advises that chiropractors exercise caution about what title they use when advertising, see here. This was after an ASA judgement in 2013 on a chiropractor who went to the United States and obtained a DC degree. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Russia coup Turkey
Hi As you said that if both countries did not deny or confirm it happend, that it should be assumed as "not happend" I would like to ask, why it can't stay as the reader can then check the sources and judge for themselves right? Or is that not the intention? Should there be only facts posted in that section? Kind regards, BM Tornado (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Following the same rationale you could add Andorra or Indonesia to the belligerents, as their involvement has neither been confirmed nor denied (nor in fact reported anywhere). We need positive evidence that something has happened, otherwise we should assume it has not. Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * But the supports of Russia were reported in the sources? Or are they too vague (not a positive evidence) for you? Can I ask when a source is best reliable? Like for example does it have to be of an international news agency such as bbc news, or are small sources also allowed, because if that's the case the sources of Russian support were fine I think. But I understand, we may best wait for a confirm or denial of Turkey or Russia about these matters. BM Tornado (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC) BM Tornado (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It should NOT be based anything by a single uncontrollable source that is not central to the issue (in this case the Iranian secret service). It should be recently confirmed by reliable sources; i.e. after the initial report. At least that is for the infobox (which summarises it all) Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Arnoutf. Youre edging to the three revert rule on '2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt'. Please stop edit warring. Saint Aviator  lets talk 22:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please keep this advice to yourself. You are nowhere near a position to offer advice on edit-warring since you are reverting at lightning speed without consensus and using attacking edit-summaries to boot. Dr.   K.  23:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Im not talking to you here, if I was I would write on your talk page. But since you raised some points, I will add to you. 1/ be civil 2/ your reverts were just as fast 3/ your edit summary was attacking. So seriously !  Saint Aviator  lets talk 23:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't confuse civility with reminders and examples of how you seem a bit disingenuous on your proclamations and warnings to others. Dr.   K.  23:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No need for me to respond. Quality of arguments and tone of voice of SaintAviator say it all. Arnoutf (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.