User talk:Skjoldbro

A old question from 2022
Back in 2022 I stated the question "Hey Skjoldbro, I believe you have made a mistake on some of the Dutch armed forces pages The flag that has been recently added to them by me is not a special flag for government buildings but instead it is the new flag designated to these branches after the operation the government started to modernize and unify the government logos. If you would like to research it I suggest visiting www.rijkshuisstijl.nl the website for this new branding of the government." to which you replied "@Alexander vee: Per offical Ceremonieel & protocol both flags are used, with your flags explicitly stated as Huisstijl Defensie. Further, as far as I can read (granted not very good) from this source (p. 6-8), the flags are only for government buildings. Additionally, I personally, find it close to impossible that the government and military would go along and change their military heritage to flags that look this corporate. I don't think you will find any ships in the Navy actually flying these flags. However, I could be wrong. If you have any official sources to state your view, other than a bare URL, I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. ", I am extremely sorry for my absence of a reply, but I had to deal with a sudden family death. It seems like you have made a misunderstanding in the text, while "huisstijl" directly translates to "house style", its English equivalent is something along the lines of "brand guide" or "visual identity". Below is a list of your claims and my counterarguments.

1.per c&p both are used:Correct, but the non-corporate looking ones are "old, only for building use flags" and the other ones are the official ones

2. stated as huisstijl defensie: huisstijl refers to "brand guide," I inform you of this as a fluent Dutch speaker.

3.only for gov buildings:I guess partly due to lack of understanding of the word huisstijl and also, in the document ceremonieel & protocol, the last sentence before the image States that the old flags may still be used on military complexes. Old refers to the flags you consider the current ones, I believe this because of the upload dates and naming conventions of Wikimedia Commons user d'arch's images, and the overall image behind these flags and the new government identity.

4.corporate look: This was already a compromise, they all would have looked like the top flag on your magazine source with that same blue logo. But, as the same article states, the minster refused to fly that flag and the headquarters flew the Dutch flag until they came to agreement on personalized orange logos and unique flags.

5. navy does not fly these flags:Correct, they fly the Dutch national flag.

Alexander vee (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Skjoldbro Also, two more things. Most dutch defense complexes I have recently passed by or visited have replaced the old flag with the new one on the building, one example is the Marechaussee in Zevenaar, Netherlands. Second, most other Wikipedia pages in Dutch have been updated to my point of view by other users.
 * Thank you, Alexander vee (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * condolences. As for the subject. If the both images can be used, why not keep the current images, what do the change improve? There is historical understanding and precedence for the "old/current". Additionally, the "old/current" are all used in military relations, not civilian designed, with the added fact that they are all individually recognizable. I doubt any can actually tell the difference between the Navy, Air force and Marechaussee flags, as they are all blue/white flags with an orange stripe and small hard to see logo. If they are simply a "Brand guide" instituted by the government, what is to say it won't change again in 1-2-3 years? I can not see anything on the NLD wiki, they are also using "old/current" flags along with the "corporate" logo. If you still feel like the "corporate" flags are an improvement, you are welcome to start a discussion on the relevant talk pages and get Consensus. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skjoldbro I see your point, though I believe the flags are here to stay because the entire government has since updated to this style, and they probably wont have a giant overhaul soon. They are also being heavily phased out of service and soon, the old ones will most likely be completely be removed. I believe that phasing them out on wikipedia (especially the more visited pages) over some time is a good approach to slowly change it. (all flag lists continue to use old flags along with the current onesto show that both are in use). Is this phase out method something we can agree on? Alexander vee (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skjoldbro also, the flags can be used in bigger applications and the Dutch wiki uses them mostly on lists of flags, while the rest is still the old style. Hope to hear from you soon about this and my previous comment and have a great rest of your day and new year. Alexander vee (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skjoldbro Also, it would be good to start generating awareness. Hope to hear back soon. Alexander vee (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the value in changing the flags. The current flags all have historic value, are within the rules and are distinct. The "corporate" flags are not distinct, readers will have trouble telling them apart. If the old flags are removed from use, then it would only make sense to change it. However, I have noticed a mistake, the previously linked "offical Ceremonieel & protocol" is no longer valid and the current "Ceremonieel & protocol" makes no mention of either the old style or the Huisstijl Defensie, as far as I can tell. They make vague references to e.g. "vlag van de KLu", without specifying what variant they are talking about. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a side note. You might not believe that the style will change, but per this source (p. 8 afb. 1) it has already changed once. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Canadian ranks
I see you reverted some edits on the Canadian rank templates to show Sergeant as OR6/5 and Master Corporal as OR4. The same edits from the same account were made to the article on Canadian ranks, which I reverted. Now, I don't have access to 6th or 7th edition 2116, but looking at the charts in 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions the edits made moving Sergeant to OR6, MCpl to OR5, etc. were correct according to the historical documents. At least to my reading of them, hence why I'm here, just wanted to run it by you to see what your read of the previous 2116 editions is?

The confusion would seem to stem from how in previous editions Sergeant was counted as OR5, if the person had less than 3 years service, otherwise the rank was OR6. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The most current version can be found on the official website.
 * It looks like it was 6th edition, where Canada opted for a structure closer with the UK; removing Private Recruit. Which makes sense, most nations only have privates for OR-1 and 2. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

On heads of goverment election positioning
Hi Skjoldbro sorry to bother you. Hear me out on the List of heads of government of Bulgaria i did not change it randomnly if you look at the list of heads of states of Bulgaria it has the same election positioning. I am not just doing this for the lols ok. Its idiotic for the head of goverment and for the heads of state to have diffrent election positioning. You can look at my wiki acount history i have just modified and standardized articles with heads of states and did not modify the position of the elections Friendlyhistorian (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Therefore, this is the most important information, because this is the centre of every table no matter what. As such everything else in tables are "nice to have" and should come after this central information. This will also create consistency throughout all wiki tables. Going one step further. What does every political officeholder have? a political party? Also agree here? Then that should come after the central core information. Then afterwards, final we can have elections, as this is something that is not used for every political officeholder. Skjoldbro (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC) And I'm not saying that "Pic-Name-Time in office" is the usual order. I am however saying that these informations are the central information at every list concerning officeholder, no matter what. Or are you suggesting that is possible to create any list of officeholders without this information? The central pieces of information is available on every list no matter if it is about civilian, military, minister, head of gov or head of state. This is a fact, even if there has been instability, civil war, coups or going from monarchy to republic. Wouldn't you agree? And since this is the central information, it should always be presented first. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC) I never said that elections weren't important, just that there are some which is more important. My central reasoning is pretty simple (I believe): the most important and central information should be first. That central informations at the simplest is "Name-Term". A claim that I have attempted to prove with various points. But I will try to visualize:
 * You are right, they should be the same. I have therefore changed heads of state to the standardized election positioning, which is most common, so it is in line with heads of government. Thanks for pointing it out. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Come one Skjokldbro there tons of articles that are not that way i already gave you one example . Having the election at the front makes no sense . Cantg we discuss this ? Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many articles like this like the List of prime ministers of Australia the east timor list, the zambia list , you can even look at the history of the heads of state of bulgarian i have never edited apart from the positioning of the royal houses Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can give you just as many examples with elections in the back, with a longer history of use and more widespread. But sure, why should they be in the front? What is achieved with this? How is it better? Skjoldbro (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all thanks for hearing me out . Ok so my take on this issue is since we are dealing with an elected position . When you first chek a list you would like to see the most improtant information . Since you are a more experiance editor it might seem petty to you but it really looks better when you a name then the election and then rest of the information . I speak as someone who loves reading wikipedia its really easier on the eyes . Another focus i have is making pictures just a bit bigger as well . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Aslo i speak as someone who loves politics the average person will not just randomnly looks at a list of prime ministers of DRC . So i try to improve those lists as much as possible . I am not really that good at finding sources and writing large texts . But just how you tend to focus on military ranks . I tend to focus on political lists as well as election results i worked on that a lot as well . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Better looking is debateable. I would argue it is worse looking at the front, because as you very well know, sometimes there aren't elections. Just look at the page you just edited List of heads of state of Bulgaria. The first thing that come after name, is start date (for kings), and the below, suddenly there is an election between those two. The same for List of presidents of the Dominican Republic. Name-start date, then Name-election-start. It is even worse at List of heads of state of Ghana or List of heads of state of Sierra Leone, here it changes between start date and election every new table. You are welcome to think that is better looking and "easier" on the eyes, but I would argue that this kind of inconsistency is exactly the opposite. Consistency is "easier on the eyes", just like knowing where things are. When start date keeps moving around, it gets very confusing.
 * If you look across all of wiki, on every single officeholder table (civilian, military, ministers, head of gov etc.), what will be the information that you will always find? Image, Name, Start date, End date, Time in office. Agreed? This is information you will always be able to find no matter?
 * If you look across all of wiki, on every single officeholder table (civilian, military, ministers, head of gov etc.), what will be the information that you will always find? Image, Name, Start date, End date, Time in office. Agreed? This is information you will always be able to find no matter?
 * Hello Skjoldbro ok let me respond to this . The reason the lists you mentioned are diffrent is because the list is broken up . Also we are talking about nations that has coups and civil wars . Sierra leona has 5 coups Ghana 5 and the Dominical republic 10 and to add to that Sierra Leone and Ghana went from monarchy to republic . Its kinda hard to put an election table during a period of military dictatorships or monarchies . The three nations you mentioned have a history of instability as i mentioned before to add to that many contries have a long history but break up their politcal periods for example looks at the El slavador presidential list . Another issue you say that ever list has Name, Start date, End date, Time in office but thats not really true in many of those lists it was me or other editors who but that in . In some cases certain lists names were placed in front of the names . And there was a drama a long time ago cause someone put sortable tables in certain lists . The idea that there is some short of univershall standards for list is wrong . As for the election issue here is the thing you can look at something like the list of prime ministers of samoa or New zealand where even when there is not an election you do have the parliement that the office holder was sitting But we cant put that in many lists due to those nations being presidential republics . Every countries has its own issues when it comes to this ok its not simple . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, it is hard to put elections during mil-dictatorships. Meaning that elections can't be the most imposant thing, hence why it shouldn't be at the front. Just like I also agree that many nations have had instability, but that doesn't mean that above listede tables with changing layout isn't confusing and inconsistent, only another reason to have the elections further back.
 * Here is the thing ok no matter what i say you will say what you believe because this is wikipedia and thats how editor are . It does not matter how many examples i show you  it does not matter what i say . You will say what you want to say and nothing will change. You are trying to convince me that  in modern head of state or head of government list the election should be at the back . you complain about the tables being different yes every article is different look at the prime ministers of isreal for example its bad . But i cant make it like the uk one or the french one i can make it similar but i have my limits . As for the information listen election are important okay i started editing in 2018 and i clearly remember many many articles having the postioning at the front . And it was way worse in terms of consistency . Listen if you think i am wrong ok just look at the List of prime ministers of Australia its a featured article . But no offence it does not matter what is say and if we are going to talk about my edits . In some of your edits you put the color at the front near the party name and in others like in the cuba article you leave it at the back . But again it doe not matter cause whatever is say you will say i am wrong thats how wikipedia is  Friendlyhistorian (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also sorry for responding like this but like your refuse do engage in any argument i make . I dont edit randomly i have studied other lists and i have tried to improve them i dont just add stuff for no reason Friendlyhistorian (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw if you are tired of this its ok we can discuss it some other time if you want Friendlyhistorian (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I would have thought I have tried to listen to the points that you have made and ask follow-up questions to things I found inconsistent and to better understand. I hope that you will do the same. For discussions to be fruitful, there need to be objective and civil exchange of ideas which helps people to grow and reflect on their own personal beliefs.
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"

! Name ! Dates
 * Bob
 * 1910-1930
 * Jeff
 * 1930-1950
 * }
 * As you can see, this is really all that is needed to have a list, this is the central and most important information, everything expands on these two. In principle, all list pages on wiki could be changed to this and the reader would still be able to have idea of what is happening. You seem to disagree with this. Why? Skjoldbro (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response . I just got very sad by all of it . I know it wont matter but i will say this it  is true that some things are more important than others but in an list where we are talking about elected people i think they year were they were elected is kinda of important . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As you can see, this is really all that is needed to have a list, this is the central and most important information, everything expands on these two. In principle, all list pages on wiki could be changed to this and the reader would still be able to have idea of what is happening. You seem to disagree with this. Why? Skjoldbro (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response . I just got very sad by all of it . I know it wont matter but i will say this it  is true that some things are more important than others but in an list where we are talking about elected people i think they year were they were elected is kinda of important . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You are right, it is kind of important, but there are other things more important. Or maybe you believe otherwise? It's a fair belief, but how would you argue that? I don't believe tables should be structured around what "looks good", because who get to decide that? You? Me? On what criteria? What is to stop someone from putting "political party" in the front with the reasoning that is looks better? Table should be structured logically, where readers can expect consistency. There are 205 sovereign states, if we pretend that every country has one head of state, one head of government, 10 government ministers, one chief of defence, and three military branch chiefs, we get 16 officeholder lists per countries and 3,280 lists in total (This does not include historic offices, agencies, NGOs etc.). Out of all these, every one of the 3,280 lists will have time in office. Assuming that every head of state/gov is political, 2,050 of the 3,280 list will have political parties, and only 410 of the 3,280 lists will have elections. Logically, it should go from most common to least common. Wouldn't you agree? If not, why? Skjoldbro (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC) And you are wrong, I'm more than willing and able to change my mind if the arguments are good and logical. Are you? Skjoldbro (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As a closing, I think you should attempt to work on your debating skills, maybe read List of fallacies, this will help you here and elsewhere in life. Skjoldbro (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay let me adress this to explain my perspective . Frist of all i apologize for the delayed response i was editing and i was also also kinda of dealing with some issues . When i started being a wiki editor i did it cause i saw that that many political parties did not have election results and gradually started adding election results in many africa parties and later branched out to other countries .The i shifted towards doing lists specifically modifing them and eithe adding pictures or adding stuff like coups symbols like cross for when someone died in office adding political parties . When i use that table i am using something that was already there way before i started editing . I joined wikipedia in 2018 there are articles with that election positioning from 2015. Now cause i know you will bring this up i undo your edit on the Paraguay list . There many lists that you have done and you dont see me going and change it to my standard in fact i alway check a list to make sure you have not edited it in the past . There are many list latin america lists that are this way . Including Mexico, Panama and Honduras if you can go randomly and undo my edits then i can theoretically do the same on articles you have worked for like the List of presidents of iran or the various ministries of defense that you have edited . Ok now back to the main question I did not pick that election positioning on that table style btw i am refering to the tables not being sortable and the party color being in the same column as the numbering . Its what i found when i started editing wikipedia and stuck with it . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But why do you keep insisting on sticking with it? It wasn't the most used, and even if it was, is that a good reason? So, in principle, would you make all the same arguments, if you had seen elections in the back first? And just because I haven't personally added elections in the back, doesn't mean that they should just be moved. Because if that was the only factor that meant anything then I should also be allowed to change elections to the back on articles where you haven't added it, right? Skjoldbro (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok i have another reason but before i say it let me be clear that i didn't do this way just because i actually did comparisons also i think wiki editors should be able to make choices that you might not agree with regarding editing . Anyway some elections need symbols so being that position makes it better for example some elections are referndums so i put a C temple on the legend about the table so like you can see the meaning of the symbol with the election when you reading up close . Also listen i am the only one i do remember a time when you tried to change a list i think it was yemen it was year ago and there was another editor who reverted you edit so i am not the only one ok . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When have I ever said that editors can't make choices that you might not agree with? Because I agree. That is why I have now started a Centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. That way we can get opinions on other editors and gain Consensus. Please participate so all arguments are heard. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You know thats not fair cause the majority of editors do not bother with lists so its gonna be your word as someone with thousands of edits vs me who is a semi regular editor about a niche thing .Cause like said it does not matter what i will say. You are just trying to force me to give up and you know it and i know . I never touched the pages you edited . but you do go after the pages I edited . You know what you are doing and pls stop leaving messaged in 3 diffrent talk pages we talk here or my talk page . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also the reasons you are doing this is that you will 2 or 3 editors to agree with you and then all the articles will be changed cause now you can say . "Ah see we have consensus so it should be done my way " Friendlyhistorian (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also i would like you ask you question ? why are you doing all this what have I done to you . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right most people don't bother, which I wrote on a page where people should have an interest. I don't think people should care about which editor have the most edits, but only look at the arguments. Looking only at edit counts is not a valid reason to decide anything, and I don't believe that any editors would do that. Consensus is one of the Five pillars, I don't really see how trying to follow the rules is bullying. You are encouraged to participate, maybe other editors will even side with you, rather than me. I have nothing against you, and never have, I do however, find placing elections at the front a disservice to readers. I see no advantage to it, and so far, I have not heard a single compelling argument for it. Hence why I would like clarity on it from more people. Also please note that Canvassing exists. Skjoldbro (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like you think every edit is against you and unfair. Consensus exists and I think that you should follow it. Apart from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics discussion, I will not participate in this discussion anymore. Congrats.
 * Listen i dont thing that . there many changes that have been that i dont like but i have not raised an issue . Its that that this is my bread and butter . I think you mean well and you have good intentions . Its just they way you have responed to some of my arguments feel really bad . Maybe its language barrier i dont know Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think i am willing to make an agreement but i need to know this apart from the election positioning do you have other issues in regards to my edits ? Friendlyhistorian (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)