User talk:Airbornemuseum

Hello, Airbornemuseum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you have done so far on Airborne Museum (Oosterbeek). I hope you enjoy editing and expanding the site, and if you do there are some pages that you might find helpful. They're kind of text heavy and probably not that enthralling, but if you skim them you'll get the idea. Personally I've never read any of them all the way through in one sitting, but refer to them when I need to; they're fairly common sense guidelines.

The five pillars of Wikipedia. These are the sort of golden rules for contributing.
Tutorial. How to go about creating articles and that sort of thing.
How to edit a page and How to develop articles.
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish).
Manual of Style. How Wikipedia does things, especially when there's a hundred different ways of writing something.

If you want to discuss the content of pages you can do so on the article's talk page (by clicking on the 'discussion' tab at the top of the page). It's also really useful for others if you sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this automatically inserts your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question.

I like the additional content you've added to the Airborne Museum page. It was a fairly basic article before. However, I have a few observations. I presume that English isn't your first language, so I'll go through it a little bit later and make some grammar corrections for you. Also, it really helps to include in line references in the text, to a footnote section (you actually inadvertently deleted a reference and the footnote section in your first edit). The Airborne Museum Website will act as a good source for such references.

On that note, I feel I should draw your attention to a few other wiki policies. Wikipedia frowns on editors writing about themselves or their own business, as it can create a conflict of interest. I assume you might be affiliated with the Airborne Museum given your username. There is some info on it here, which you might want to read (I imagine there may be similar policies on the Dutch wikipedia if that's easier to read). Some other editors may also have a problem with your account, which may fall foul of policy as well (see here). Users may also be concerned that you are only a Single purpose account. Finally, wikipedia has very stringent content rules, and although not directly copied, I notice that a lot of your contributions are close to the content of the Airborne Museum website's content. Be careful not to copy and paste content, as this will be deleted quickly.

Anyway, I'm certain that your edits are all in good faith, but I thought it best to draw your attention to this. If the Battle of Arnhem is of interest to you, you might find this project that I'm working on interesting: User:Ranger_Steve/Arnhem

Finally let me welcome you to Wikipedia once more and I hope you enjoy yourself. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I think that with all the extra content you've added, it would be quite easy to get the article to WP:GA status now. That would however require in line references - similar to the one I've just added to the article. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that we are a history museum with a scientifical approach it was my goal to be as objective as possible[edit]

Is ignoring 1st Independent Parachute Brigade (Poland) "scientific and neutral"? WP:SPA Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly have they ignored the Polish Brigade? They are still mentioned in the Airborne Museum article, as they always were (alongside the 1st Division and Glider Pilot Regiment). Although this may appear to be a Single Purpose Account, that so far hasn't been a problem. Their edits to the article haven't been promotional in nature, in fact they've enhanced it. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean? Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"They" doesn't include the User:Airbornemuseum, the author of several Wikipedia articles ignoring the Polish Brigade.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this user's contributions, you'll see that they have so far only edited the Airborne Museum 'Hartenstein' article and my talk page. If you're referring to other wikis then I suggest you take it up there. Saying that though, of the other 4 languages that the museum article is in, 3 only refer to allied troops (without specifying any nationality) and the fourth does mention the Poles. I fail to see the problem here and leaving such vague and accusatory messages doesn't help anyone. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have your POV and I have mine. Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're not making any sense. If you wish to make a proper complaint about POV/SPI or some attempt to rewrite history, I suggest you do it properly. Leaving totally unfounded and quite impolite accusations on other peoples talk pages is unhelpful to say the least. I suggest you drop this. Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Airbornemuseum? If not, what is your point? This user promotes the museum in several Wikipedias which is "for the purposes of promotion", it's not the best practice. He refuses to answer my critics in any Wikipedia, including this one. Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. My point is that you are making wp:uncivil remarks and making accusations that don't even begin to make sense, as I have demonstrated. I have already addressed your points on the nature of their edits. This is not the sort of behaviour that is welcome on English Wikipedia and I think you should retract your bizarre accusation and quit this. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]