User talk:Editør

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Editør! I am Logan and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! Logan Talk Contributions 03:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.


 * List of Internet exchange points by size (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Zuidbroek and Ede


 * William III of the Netherlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to William III and Maurice

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amsterdam ossenworst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raw (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) 11:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rijksmuseum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buitenhof (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) 01:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cornelis Apostool, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dilettante and Hendrik Meijer (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) 13:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jan Willem Pieneman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nederland (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) 11:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commodore (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) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lodewijk Bruckman
Alex ShihTalk 01:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review: Daniel S. Schanck Observatory
I have addressed your concerns at the GA review for Daniel S. Schanck Observatory. Please review and let me know if there are further concerns.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Attempting to reach out to you so we can finish revising the article and conclude the GAN review. It has been 11 days since your last comments on the review. Please respond.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't find time to look at it and I probably won't in the next few days. I'm sorry if this doesn't match you expectations. – Editør (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagreed with you so I figured as much. Walking away to let it languish out of spite. That's rather low, dude. You probably shouldn't commit to a GA review when you can't/won't deliver your end of it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We already established that we disagree on certain points. Resolving these disagreements takes more time than I anticipated. Once I realized I couldn't respond right away, I tried to notify you, because I didn't want to leave the impression that I was ignoring the review. After your last comments, however, I am not sure that you actually want a review. – Editør (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, dude. I don't start a review and then disappear for two weeks. I don't commit to something then drop it. I finish what I start. I don't leave people hanging, and I don't expect others to leave me hanging. Aside from the courtesy of it, I consider that a bare minimum of fairness. Would you wait for two weeks? --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I wasn't more explicit about the time that it would take me. Though I don't understand why you are addressing me in this manner. Sure I would wait two weeks, especially in the holiday season I would understand these things can take a little longer. – Editør (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Museum de Oude Wolden
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Museum de Oude Wolden you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- 02:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Museum de Oude Wolden
The article Museum de Oude Wolden you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Museum de Oude Wolden for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- 06:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking
Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:
 * dates
 * years
 * commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
 * common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony  (talk)  07:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you mean that overlinking should be avoided, I agree with you. But I don't think I've linked any dates or years, and about the geographical names and commons terms, I think it is often a matter of preference. – Editør (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do relink less common items if you really think it improves things. I've responded on my talk page more fully. Thx. Tony   (talk)  01:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Museum de Oude Wolden
The article Museum de Oude Wolden you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Museum de Oude Wolden for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- 05:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and efforts! – Editør (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Fix attempt
Hi, I noticed you tried to fix something on Template:Dutch municipality population density‎. What was the problem and is it fixed now? CRwikiCA talk 14:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it is fixed now, thanks. The output of the template couldn't be used as input for, so I've removed some newlines/whitespace and now the conversion works properly. I hope it didn't cause any new problems elsewhere. – Editør (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see, or expect, any problems, so it should be fine. I was just wondering what the problem was. CRwikiCA  talk 22:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Coat of arms of Groningen (province) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coat of arms of Groningen (province) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Coat of arms of Groningen (province) 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. Laun chba  ller  15:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Vestingmuseum Oudeschans
The DYK project (nominate) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Coat of arms of Groningen (province)
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheers

 * Cheers! – Editør (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! – Editør (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Maps
You have a point about the size of the map in the Bellingwedde article, it is too bad the smaller map isn't available in a svg version. I'll try to look into that once I am done updating all the municipal infoboxes, because these maps become progressively more out of date as municipalities merge. CRwikiCA talk 23:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Wakatobi flowerpecker
You didn't seems to got any ping, here, Featured picture candidates/Wakatobi flowerpecker. Additional question. Hafspajen (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No I haven't, but I can say that Alt 1 looks nice. – Editør (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case it probably will not pass, pity. Hafspajen (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, voting has already ended on 28 June 2014. – Editør (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that is a special area, waiting for the last vote, yours, Editør... (Additional question). They wait for your vote to be able to close it. Go to  Featured picture candidates and you will see...  or just scroll down on Featured picture candidates. A waiting area.  Hafspajen (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What Hafspajen said: those who usually close these things have left it open (ignore the comment to the contrary at the top of the page) so that people can re-comment since there was some question on the alt2 vs. alt2 issue... We are now just waiting on you as the rest have re-commented. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explaination, but don't wait for me. – Editør (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Museum the Fundatie DYK
He Editør, I reviewed your DYK nomination; see Template:Did you know nominations/Museum de Fundatie for details... You further comments/adaptions are -as always- appreciated... L.tak (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Editør (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi
I made a note about the sons death at the Johan Witteveen article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification, I will have a look at it. – Editør (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Willem Witteveen
Hello! Your submission of Willem Witteveen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! czar ♔   00:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Museum de Fundatie
The DYK project (nominate) 22:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Willem Witteveen
The DYK project (nominate) 03:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Bas Jan Ader
Editør: Are you familiar with the work of Bas Jan Ader? I’m working on an article for “I’m too sad to tell you”. If you can suggest some sources or content, that would be great. I’m particularly interested in the influence this work has had on other artists.--Nowa (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can help you with sources or content for his work. – Editør (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Thanks anyway.--Nowa (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Goldfinch (painting)
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Rechthuis
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, roadfan!
Hello, Editør, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects—WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:AURD (Australia), WP:CARD (Canada), WP:HKRD (Hong Kong), WP:INRD (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States)—and contribute. If your interest is in roads in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me! If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC. Again, welcome!  Imzadi 1979  →   10:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Station ownership
Railway stations in The Netherlands that are owned and maintained by NS Stations (which you recently created), should say that under the parameter and have  set as NS style. I think you are confusing train operations with stations and have created a false Arriva style. It appears to me that all of those stations have white on blue signage on the platforms rather than the train colors you have used. Am I correct in thinking that Arriva does not actually own the stations? Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, the railway stations owned by NS Stations should use the colors of NS in their infobox. However, I was reluctant to change the colors back as boldly as I changed them the first time, before figuring out who owns what exactly at the railway stations. – Editør (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If Arriva does not own any stations, then Arriva style could be redirected to NS style. That would instantly change the display. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At the Winschoten railway station for instance, the station building is owned by NS Stations, the tracks by ProRail, and the roofed bus station by Arriva, but I'm not sure those are all related owners. In any case, I think your suggestion of the redirect is a good idea and make the edits right away. – Editør (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/The Threatened Swan

 * BTW could you indicate at Featured picture candidates/William III of the Netherlands, whether you support the alternative or not? Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 20:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! – Editør (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . Armbrust The Homunculus 03:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Juliëtte Wytsman


A tag has been placed on Juliëtte Wytsman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dates
Please don't alter the format of the entries on the date pages as you have done here. The explicit &amp;ndash; is intentional and is part of the article template specified at WP:DAYS. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did use the "proper dashes", but changing the code from – to &amp;ndash; is fine by me. – Editør (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

1st duke of buckingham
Your exchange of images appeared to me editorially insensitive and so I have reversed it. The pearl-studded portrait needs to be closer to the mention of it in the text. Other images in the article are also placed near discussion of them or of the events they commemorate. It would have been better if you had read the article first. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a problem, the portrait is not mentioned in the section it accompanied (and now again accompanies). If there is a good reason for using it there, maybe a brief explanation can be added to the image's caption? I think there should be a portrait in the infobox instead of the coat of arms. Are there any alternative portraits that could be used here? – Editør (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * – Editør (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you 'think there should be a portrait in the infobox' when there are plenty in the body of the text? Are there WP guidelines on this or is it pure POV? There are certainly many more portraits of Buckingham in Wikimedia, if you can justify their use by anything other than personal preference. The heraldic quarterings of his coat of arms, for those who can interpret them, play a vital part in understanding his aristocratic role and arguably belong where they have been placed. What is really needed is an explanation somewhere of what they mean. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A portrait in the infobox serves the purpose of visual identification of the person. A coat of arms doesn't serve this purpose as well (if it does at all), even though it can an informative illustration for the article on different places. – Editør (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Lulu Wang
No infobox wars please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like there isn't any. – Editør (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I take some issue with your rather curt removal of an otherwise pretty useless infobox. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the infobox for Lulu Wang, not removed it. If you see a problem with it, please discuss this further at the article's talk page. – Editør (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have that backwards: after your change was reverted, it was for you to obtain consensus for the addition. Now that I see the article creator,, also sees it as unhelpful on this particular article, it's plain that there is no consensus to add it, so I have removed it again. I saw you making other changes to the article that were helpful, but please do not impose infoboxes just because you like them and then demand others discuss before reverting that particular change. ArbCom has ruled them strictly optional. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This user talk page is not the place to find consensus on this issue. Please move this discussion to Talk:Lulu Wang. – Editør (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * May I offer a small piece of advice, please? In my experience your case will always be damaged if you re-revert when your edit has been reverted. It's far better at that point to open the talk page discussion and lay out your reasons. You may also wish to alert any Wikiprojects that are interested in the subject, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes in these sort of disputes. If others agree with you, they'll restore your edit: there's never any advantage in doing so yourself. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be butting in again, but if you want to bring more eyes to bear on a discussion, you have to alert others in a way that will not give the appearance of distorting the consensus on the discussion page. I mean you mustn't only notify editors whom you expect to be sympathetic to your view; that's why I suggested alerting multiple Wikiprojects above, as that will usually attract an representative range of editors to lend weight to the discussion without unduly favouring one side. I hope that helps in future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

EU Survey Dutch
Hello again, so I found this EU survey but I don't think it is the one Ethnologue is referring to, but I do think it is useful. This study cites the number of native speakers of Dutch at 96% which imho seems more correct. But judge for yourself: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf Gati123 (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Holland Times
Hello. I removed your "citation needed" templates from The Holland Times, as all you want citation for can simply be read in the paper, and there's already a link to a page that lets you read old editions online. Also, could you further describe the notability issue? It is the only English-language, national newspaper in the Netherlands, that makes it pretty notable to me. PPP (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments on the article's talk page and comment there if you have any questions. – Editør (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Queen Juliana
You've been around long enough to know that cutting-and-pasting material robs contributors of the credit they're due for their work. Please sort it out. WP:RIA Bazj (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you want me to sort out. – Editør (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added two split templates, guessing that is what you meant, which you could have just said in the first place. – Editør (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if following the link I left to the section "Repairing insufficient attribution" and reading 1 short paragraph of text was so difficult for you. Bazj (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Editor,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Vincent van Gogh - Head of a skeleton with a burning cigarette - Google Art Project.jpg is schedule to be Picture of the Day on October 31, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-10-31. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply
I explained, each one, at the article's talk page.

Before you posted to my user talk page, could you please check, and discuss, at the article's talk page, about the article ?

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! – Editør (talk)
 * You're most welcome, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please, let's avoid violations of No Original Research
I'd very much rather avoid violations of No Original Research.

Your own personal POV at The Truth According to Wikipedia is interesting, but irrelevant.

I'd very much like to keep reliance on secondary sources for this article, okay?

Thank you, for taking the time to think about this, and your understanding in this matter to not violate NO Original Research,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What are you referring to? – Editør (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's both avoid "presume" things, on article talk pages, as you put it, in your words. Instead, let's suggest things backed up to sources, or not at all. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your vague accusations don't make any sense. – Editør (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When you use the word "presume", without backing up your complaints to any sources and fail to present any sources to back up your complaints -- that is what is vague. You later did back up your claims with cited sources, and that is most appreciated, so that particular complaint is now done and ✅ and done. Hopefully we can successfully address all of your repeated complaints and move on forwards from here and continue to the future. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you are twisting things, because you claimed a violation of NOR before that edit. Secondly, I did link the Nederlandse Publieke Omroep article as a reference. In the artice you can read that the NPO uses the three channels NPO 1, NPO 2, and NPO 3 (which were called Nederland 1, Nederland 2, and Nederland 3 in 2008). Your accusations are unfounded. – Editør (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the future, please, I ask of you, to avoid "presume" things, before you back them up with sources. Backing them up with sources is the way to go here, on the talk page and in the article space. Thank you for taking some time to think this over and modify your behavior accordingly. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting past issues
Please stop revisiting past issues that we had already resolved.

Your disapproval that a "documentary" is a form of "film" is just mind-boggling.

Despite this, I went through and replaced instances of the word "film" with the word "documentary".

This issue was then resolved.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that you have added "done" to a discussion doesn't mean an issue was resolved. You are removing discussions from Talk:The Truth According to Wikipedia and User talk:Cirt which makes discussion and communication hard if not impossible. I would like to suggest that you take some distance and revisit the issues at a later time. – Editør (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are repeatedly revisiting past issues that were resolved to a compromise between both parties. Can you agree that it is factually accurate that I went and removed all instances of the word "Film" and replaced them with the word "Documentary" ??? I would like to suggest that you take some distance and revisit the issues at a later time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And it appears you are ignoring my question, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your continued postings reversing your prior positions at Talk:The Truth According to Wikipedia - it is confusing and stagnates progress
Thank you for agreeing to step away from your repeated reversals and going back on your word in this matter, it's most appreciated,
 * 1) Please stop your continued postings reversing your prior positions at Talk:The Truth According to Wikipedia - it is confusing and stagnates progress.
 * 2) I have now shown in several DIFFs where you previously agreed to compromises and my good-faith edits -- only to later go back and reverse yourself and say you are now not fine with them.
 * 3) I removed all instances of word "film", and replaced them all with word "documentary". You previously said you were fine with this and agreed this was an effective compromise, at DIFF. Now, you appear to be reversing yourself, yet again, at DIFF.
 * 4) You previously agreed that non-notable people should not be listed, per DIFF. Now, you appear to be reversing yourself, yet again, at DIFF.
 * 5) It now is clear to me that your participation on the talk page appears to have an added motivation of getting me to make good-faith compromises, only to then go back on your word and make new claims that violate your own prior established agreement with these compromises.
 * 6) Therefore, I respectfully ask you to disengage, back away, and stop participation in this discussion about this article, as you clearly have a lack of ability to engage in good-faith compromises when outreaches are made, as I have done, repeatedly, and you then agreed to, repeatedly, only to reverse yourself and go back on your word.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I do no appreciate your continuous accusations, reversions, mentions, pings, premature archiving of talk pages, and complete removals of user talk page discussions. I recommend you to stop taking discussions about facts in articles personal. And I urge you to stop contacting me or posting again on my user talk page. – Editør (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. Don't post to my user talk page either. And STOP going back on your word from prior agreements. Thanks !!! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Tone
I have responded to the matters of fact on the Escher talk page, but I wanted to mention to you here that the tone of your message seems to me needlessly aggressive and uncollegiate. I have worked hard to bring the article up to a good standard, and it is simply unhelpful to a discussion, and in breach of the Wikipedia policy on civility, to raise accusations on talk pages. I had in fact noticed something of the sort before, but this instance was so clear that I could not overlook it. It appears from the comments by User:Cirt above that this is not the first time you have behaved in this way. I would be grateful if you could assume good faith from now on, if you wish to take part constructively. With many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of changing anything in the article, I merely asked questions. You may not like the questions or the issues addressed by them, but I don't see how they are in any way "aggressive and uncollegiate". – Editør (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me just say, then, as gently as possible, that if a statement is made that tends to upset other people, it is the other people, not the person who made the statement, who can best judge whether they found its tone appropriate or not. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Astrid Roemer
Hello! Your submission of Astrid Roemer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Human 3015   Let It Go   11:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Astrid Roemer
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Editør,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Goliath Poldermolen.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on February 6, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-02-06. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. – Editør (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Editør,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Johannes Vermeer - Het melkmeisje - Google Art Project.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on March 1, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-03-01. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Voicing assimilation in Dutch IPA transcriptions
Please do not remove voicing assimilations from the Dutch IPA transcriptions. The transcription was correct, the pronunciation is impossible in connected speech if you're saying these words as if they were one word (unless you're extremely overpronouncing it). I suggest that you read this excellent free ebook on Dutch phonetics. Martin sv 85 (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that can't appear in the word-final position (see ) unless a voiced plosive starts the next word (the next word that is pronounced without a pause between it and the word ending in ). Martin sv 85 (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Your transcription on Blauwestad was incorrect; no Dutch word can end in in isolation - see Final-obstruent devoicing. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The same applies to your transcription on Douwe Bob. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to include the stress mark in each transcription of words that contain more than one syllable. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't need to send me a message each time you make a correction. – Editør (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, just trying to help. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Editor,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Rembrandt van Rijn - A Polish nobleman.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on April 26, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-04-26. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Amstel Gold Race
Just for your information, per WP:NOPIPE, pretty much this whole edit was unnecessary rather than "fixes". Links to redirects are not broken. Relentlessly (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed two links, the others seem alright to me. – Editør (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * They're fine, it's just unnecessary! (Personally, I have CSS styling that alerts me when I have links to redirects, so I always deal with any that matter.) Relentlessly (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Help needed on Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis - can you clarify?
I added a "clarification needed" tag under the "Models" section today. I could not determine the missing noun in the phrase. I believe this to be the result of your edit. Hope you can help. --LilHelpa (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can, I believe this part was written by User:Quirienraat. – Editør (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:LilHelpa,User:Editør Dear all, Sorry for my late reply. I never saw the notification. The missing noun should be "Model" I assume. This comes from a dutch publication about the mode (https://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/download/doc217.pdf) User:Quirienraat

DYK for Winschoten railway station
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK Princess Irene of the Netherlands
Hello Editør, on this edit: The text saying that her conversion to Catholicism was one of the causes of the constitutional crisis has since been removed from the article. Above I see that you also added one for the Winschoten railway station.... as it happens, I was there just one and a half hours ago! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not added the dyktalk template, just ordered the banners per WP:TPL when I added the dyk parameter for the WP:NL banner. – Editør (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Editør,

Just to let you know, the Featured Pictures File:De pruimenboomgaard te Kameido-Rijksmuseum RP-P-1956-743.jpeg and File:Vincent van Gogh - Bloeiende pruimenboomgaard- naar Hiroshige - Google Art Project.jpg are scheduled to be Picture of the Day on September 5, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the captions at Template:POTD/2016-09-05/1 and Template:POTD/2016-09-05/2. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Party for Freedom edit
If you wanna edit or reverse my edit on the Party for Freedom article please use the talk page. It's well enough documented on the European Election resultS OF 2009 or the dutch wikipedia pages. I also added 5 references. I tried to accommodate your criticism of the edit, but editting my contribution without any discussion on the talk page i would consider hooliganism and report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasBr1 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I had used the talk page, which you ignored, and I have used explicit edit summaries, which you haven't. If you disagree with the reversion of your edits you should start a discussion. Also see Edit warring. – Editør (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Editor,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:De bedreigde zwaan Rijksmuseum SK-A-4.jpeg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on April 29, 2017. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2017-04-29. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

refimprove and notability tags on Circle Economy
Hello, I noticed you recently added these tags to the above article. They seem redundant to add to an article already nominated for AfD over notability and referencing concerns. I was just wondering why you added these tags instead of participating in the AfD discussion. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You might have addressed these issues before nominating the article for deletion. – Editør (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted in the nomination, I attempted to find such sources and did not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Editør, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AEdit%C3%B8r added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 06:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. — Editør (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo Helmet
Hi there, just letting you know that I believe I have adequately addressed your notability concerns regarding Sutton Hoo Helmet by Rick Kirby; I've responded on the talk page, and there is an attendant discussion on its DYK nomination page. Please weigh in in one or both of the discussions; if you still do not believe your concerns have been addressed, the probable next step is, as mentioned, to nominate the article for deletion in order to allow for a more robust discussion. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not reopening the merge discussion despite Prince of Thieves being banned as a sockpuppet, it puts a different slant on the discussion but there are more useful things for me to be doing. Regards Szzuk (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for informing me about Prince of Thieves being a sockpuppet and being banned. — Editør (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.  ...SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 21:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Other users were not following guidelines by agressively removing a warning template and prematurely archiving the discussion about the issue. — Editør (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Others were repeatedly removing the notability template, but you were repeatedly adding it. That is correctly described as an edit war, and is subject to the WP:EW policy. Whether you felt the discussion reached a proper conclusion is not a factor, since WP:3RRNO doesn't give you an exemption for your reverts. The steps of WP:DR are available if you think you aren't being heard. I agree with you that this archiving of a discussion on March 2 looks premature. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have checked the article history and I did actually not intend to do the third reversion (the one without an edit summary, which I would normally always add), but that doesn't matter now. It was very clear from WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT that I was generally not doing the wrong thing here. See also my comment below about the apparent reason why people were so keen on archiving the discussion and removing the template. – Editør (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT is a section of a how-to guide, while WP:Edit warring is a Wikipedia policy. The latter takes precedence. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not arguing against precedence or policy. — Editør (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The complaint has been closed per this result but you should be cautious about restoring the notability tag again. It seems consensus is against that. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Other users were ignoring guidelines and repeatedly removing templates during an ongoing discussion. — Editør (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Editør, nice to see you back. I think you should be aware that the article has been now accepted for DYK, I won't probably support a merge at this point should one be started for that reason. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, now I understand why people were so aggressively removing the warning template and inappropriately archiving an open discussion, it was to make it appear that the notability issue was resolved so the DYK nomination could be accepted. — Editør (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that is accurate, the AfD was put forward as a procedural requirement to clear the way for the DYK to be accepted, once complete it has gone ahead. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I was just informed above that Prince of Thieves is banned for being a sockpuppet. – Editør (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Leeuwarden article section deletion edit
With this edit in April 2014 you removed the "Further reading" section of the Leeuwarden article, stating "remove Further reading with only Dutch publications". Unfortunately, that section should have been more appropriately entitled "Bibilography", as it contained the bibliographic data for several citations in the main body of text, namely to books by P. J. de Groot, et al., and K. Jansma. The citations were given in short form in the text, so when you deleted the "Further reading" section you removed essential information about sources. On a side note, you might want to think about whether an entry in a "Further reading" section is inapposite simply because it is in a non-English language, or published in a non-English speaking country. For a number of topics the in-depth works were not always published in the English language; Phenomenology (philosophy) comes to mind as an example. Also, not all readers are hindered by monolingualism. --Bejnar (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) merger proposal
--Bejnar (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank You
Editør, thank you for informing People on Wikipedia about the error spelling mistakes. It will be taken care of. I have also noticed that you must —sorry, I meant have lots of experience on Wikipedia. And so I ask for your help, could you improve the WikiProject Carnival Page. as the Project has no task forces and Does not have any Requested articles!

Best Wishes, —Martian-2008 (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Vlagtwedde


A tag has been placed on Category:Vlagtwedde requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Loppersum


A tag has been placed on Category:Loppersum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Overijssel Regions
Template:Overijssel Regions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Dutchy45 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NL style
Template:NL style has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Syntus Stoptrein color
Template:Syntus Stoptrein color has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Arriva Stoptrein stations
Template:Arriva Stoptrein stations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Femke Bol
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Femke Bol you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Checking in
Hi Editør, I've seen you have made a tremendous amount of edits on the article Femke Bol, I just wanted to know what your goal is and if you needed any help. Thanks. Alexysun (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking in. I've been trying to improve it to good article standard. Two weeks ago, I've nominated it for GA it and I am currently awaiting the (full) review that was started last week as you can see right above your post. I think I need to wait and see for now, but I will let you know if I need help in a later stage. I've just started working on the article Amsterdam Marathon, where there is still a lot to do if that would interest you. – Editør (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alexysun, the article Femke Bol is now a good article. I've been improving several articles about 400 m / 400 m hurdles / 4 x 400 m relay events at championships. 2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles has just past its good article review. Would you like to help improve more event articles up to good article status? – Editør (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Editør Thanks for pinging me. I would like to help yes. Alexysun (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could have a look at the events linked in the medal table of Femke Bol. – Editør (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alexysun ping – Editør (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Editør Will look into it. Alexysun (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Femke Bol
The article Femke Bol you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Femke Bol for comments about the article, and Talk:Femke Bol/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are already considering doing it, but someone with such an impressive curriculum as Femke Bol would look great at a DYK. Do nominate it!  The Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 23:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am considering nominating her indoor world record (Did you know that Femke Bol broke the 41-year-old world record of Jarmila Kratochvílová in the 400 metres indoor on 19 February 2023?), or do you have another suggestion? – Editør (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome, that one looks great.  The Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 00:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've just nominated it. – Editør (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! – Editør (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Femke Bol
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Femke
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Femke you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

WiG Editathon Barnstar – October 2023

 * Thanks, and thank you for organizing! – Editør (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Femke
The article Femke you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Femke for comments about the article, and Talk:Femke/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @The Blue Rider, thank you for your review! – Editør (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Femke
Z1720 (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Felt like sending someone a kitten.

Coulomb1 (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC) 


 * Thanks :-) – Editør (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time
 Hello Editør:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in June 2024!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 20 centuries by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there! Grnrchst (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Photos
Hi, thank you for the suggestion. I have not yet personally ever added a photograph. Is it a straight forward process? Thanks G Hildreth gazzard (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Hildreth gazzard, a simple way to start is using images that are already uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. When you have found an image you want to use in an article, you can insert something like this  in the source of that article. Here is a real working example of an image that you can copy-paste and maybe preview to see if you like it in the Louise Maraval article:
 * You can find more info on Help:Pictures, including info for inserting images with the visual editor. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. – Editør (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can find more info on Help:Pictures, including info for inserting images with the visual editor. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. – Editør (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles
The article 2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles for comments about the article, and Talk:2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Arconning, thank you for your review and your quick responses! – Editør (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You too! :) Arconning (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

WiG Editathon Barnstar

 * Thank you! – Editør (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Record lists in reverse chronological order
Hi, regarding your revert: Diamond Leagues are the highest tier single-day events in athletics, so I'd expect those to be the best-maintained of such articles. The world record lists of most Diamond League pages are in reverse chronological order, so that is (apparently) the standard way, and I merely made the FBK Games list consistent - along with three remaining DL pages. But I guess I should have been more clear about applying this standard on the FBK Games page. Does this explanation suffice to accept my edit as yet? (As for marking it minor, it seemed just a small formatting change to me, but I guess that's too loose an interpretation of 'minor edit'.) --Xymph (talk) Xymph (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. Looking at Help:Minor edit, I think fixing a misordering (1994 1995 1997 <–> 1996 1998 1999) would be a minor edit, changing the order of an entire table would probably not be one. Thank you for your explanation, it wouldn't be my choice though, it seems to me more fitting for an encyclopedia to have them chronologically ordered as most tables with athletics results are chronologically ordered on Wikipedia, although apparently not these WR tables. (By the way, the FBK Games are a not a Diamond League event, although that doesn't seem relevant here.) – Editør (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No, but as major single-day events they seem the most suitable examples to follow for page organization and style in other such athletics articles. So far I had only looked at the FBK Games out of personal interest (I'm a judge at this event), but reverse order is also used on other World Challenges, and even a lower tier event. In recent days I have worked on making various bits of information consistent(ly presented) on the Diamond League pages on the English and Dutch wikis (mostly on the latter, tbh), and so using reverse order on the FBK Games page (and two more events I found to deviate) would be consistent. Whether it's logical... I don't know how this order became so widely adopted, but now that it's in place it can stay, as far as I'm concerned. What I was a little surprised to see however is your requirement that references are added for world records at the FBK Games, only. Few of the Diamond League and World Challenge pages even list references, but none of the others have been tagged with Unreferenced-section. The world record progression pages for each discipline typically have sources for all entries, doesn't that suffice? Again, I am looking at this from a consistency POV, to strive for with a pragmatic amount of work. Adding sources to all mentioned event pages seems like, well, an excessive amount of duplication. --Xymph (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Consistency can be a positive thing, but I would be careful with using 'most articles do it this way' as an argument for also doing it that way, especially when the article you're copying hasn't undergone any review process. I looked at Category:GA-Class Athletics articles and for instance the good article Chicago Marathon has only chronological tables and list.
 * On the English Wikipedia, I think it is common to add sources for all the information that you're adding to an article. This makes the information verifiable for other readers (WP:V), but also prevents people with a personal connection to a subject (like you have in this case) to accidentally add unpublished information from original research, which is not allowed (WP:OR).
 * I don't think that another Wikipedia article is suitable as source for a world record. Sometimes you can simply copy the source used in that article. For the article about the FBK Games, there are only six world records, so sourcing isn't very much work, here are six sources you can use (but please double check them before adding):      – Editør (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links, they are in place along with two more. Of course it wasn't a real problem to do that for this short list. But it's another matter for long lists like Bislett_Games, Memorial_Van_Damme, and Weltklasse_Zürich (which uses a single but dead and unarchived source). Not requiring the same sourcing there and on related articles seems a little uneven - but I'm not going to spend the effort to address it. I didn't see other GA-class articles on similar competitions, and among B-class articles some use regular sorting but three use reverse. So apparently there no guideline and either way is fine depending on what the editors working on such tables feel like. Thus I applied reverse ordering for consistency, which then is a good enough fallback reason. --Xymph (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are favoring consistency with not reviewed articles over consistency with a reviewed article, and I don't understand why you've changed it again using this discussion as a reference that doesn't seem to have this conclusion. – Editør (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And you should probably declare your connection to the article's subject on its talk page using Template:Connected contributor. – Editør (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I hesitated why I'd even bother to address such a silly suggestion, but figured you may not have any idea how a big one-day event is organized. So, as said I am an (in-field) judge, one of several dozen judges and one of a few hundred volunteers in total, who spend one day a year contributing to make the competition possible. Without unpaid volunteers, these things just don't happen, at least not in the Netherlands. I am not involved with the organization, its financing, its publicity, or anything else that might be considered a conflict of interest. My interest is personal as in: an athletics fan who recently started contributing more to athletics articles and improving little bits in lots of articles – FBK Games just being one of them. Single-day competitions in particular since they appear to get less attention than the major championships. In fact the number of broken links in need of archiving is mind-boggling... Anyway, no, I don't think I need to declare anything. And btw, thanks for showing how to improve table accessibility. --Xymph (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your connection as judge in more detail. As an unpaid volunteer, you clearly don't have a direct financial interest. I don't know enough about declaring personal connections on Wikipedia to determine which should and which shouldn't be declared. And please note: "Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." Quoted from WP:COI. – Editør (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, one more thing about tables: what determines whether the first column on a row should be a header cell (with appropriate scope), like here? I don't recall seeing this elsewhere on meeting record tables (or e.g. world or area/national records). And why not on FBK's world records table? --Xymph (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that a header is meant to label a column or row and is typically a fixed element. For instance, in the meeting records tables of the Fanny Blankers-Koen Games article, "100 m" is a fixed label of a row and the other values in that row vary to match the best result until the meeting record is broken again. See Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial for more information about tables, including headers. Not all potential header cells on Wikipedia are yet labeled as such, maybe the editor that created a table forgot it or didn't know about them: another reason why you should probably be cautious using articles that haven't gone through a review process as guide on how to do things. However, in my opinion not all tables require row headers, like the world records table in the FBK article, but others may disagree.
 * Coming back to whether a personal connection should be disclosed or doesn't have to be, when I asked about this to get a better understanding, two other editors shared their preference for disclosing their connections for the sake of transparency. – Editør (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, no biggie then. Done. And while I had already read that tutorial, it didn't clarify the purpose of row header cells, but immutability is a fair point. --Xymph (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for 2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)