User talk:Robvhoorn

♠  TomasBat   ( @ )  ( Contribs )  ( Sign! ) 17:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Civil
Please remember to remain WP:CIVIL as opposed to accusing people of being biased towards a certain country. The reason I am reverting is because your section is a duplicate of "Flood prevention". I have mentioned the Delta Works in the section on Flood prevention -- daniel folsom  16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nazi concentration camps
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Grant |  Talk  02:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologise for believing that you were joking. What is your source for this? The Zentrum article makes no mention of this matter and in any case, it is wrong to associate the acts of former Zentrum members with what they did as members of the Nazi party.  Grant  |  Talk  08:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

posts on the Holocaust
I was not aware of the information you have posted on Nazi plans to settle Dutch in the Ukraine. Thank you for posting this information. My dad was with the US forces that liberated your country. He told me that he saw Dutch children starving to death because of the Nazi blockade.--Woogie10w 13:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Freemasons
Thanks for the post. The editors on the Holocaust page need help to improve the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

July 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. triwbe (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I sympathise, have seen worse but non-refed stuff cannot be permitted. --triwbe (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only concur with the above. Please read WP:OR and WP:POV as well. I am not saying your edit is incorrect - in fact I do not disagree at all - but it is unencyclopaedic. I would also be interested in a source for your assertions that I do not know Brussels or read Dutch language, by the way - both are news to me! -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Flagging Franz Koenigs for further review
Hello, … I recently encountered the article about Franz Koenigs and in my opinion, it either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it violates a copyright.

I am considering tagging  for deletion according to the Deletion policy … I do not have time to examine the article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

I have created this initial entry on your Talk page because you are either the original author of the article, or else a recent contributor to it; I will leave more detailed information regarding my specific concerns about the article on its Discussion page … please respond either there or on this Talk page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

Be sure to read Ownership of articles, and remember that Some Other Editors (including at least one administrator) may not share your opinion about the notability of the article's subject.

I do not mean to imply that your contribution is unappreciated … perhaps you should read Your first article … and remember, there was a time when I knew less about how Wikipedia works than you know right now

To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings ... I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case. — triwbe (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If this refers to the article on Koenig, I have removed the tag on that one as reviewing administrator, as there seems to be adequate documentation. DGG (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Brussels
Hello. Thanks for your efforts to write a new section to the article. I agree that perhaps the realities and de factos need to be included, but all text in articles must look like non-biased reporting. It's not just about references. "these laws are violated continuously. Dutch speaking people are often treated as second class citizens and are expected to speak French at nearly all occasions" is biased and vague language. See e.g. WP:NPOV and WP:AVOID - SSJ ☎ 10:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Koenig
Wikipedia cannot use information based on personal knowledge. I have removed the sentences about the manner of his death, unless they can be documented by 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases). If you know of a published obit or bio sketch on him, please add the reference to the article. And the way to deal with the Koenig collection is to write a well-sourced article on it. DGG (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The conference talk is a little iffy. Im going to follow up on whether people think it acceptable. This will be an interesting general issue because there are so many analogous family accounts in Yahrzeit books, and the like. It would be very useful to have a discussion and a decision. The problem of course, is that what one says there is not subject to fact checking.   DGG (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)