User talk:DeVerm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

yes? DeVerm (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New Netherland[edit]

Kindly continue to work on the New Netherland article. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Have done some serious overhaul on New Netherland article and would appreciate you feedback and help with clean-upDjflem (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your mail. I have often looked at the New NL article and thougt about doing some work on it, but it is such a mess it looked too overwhelming. I will continue to look for your edits and help where I can. FYI, I am originally from NYC (native Englsih speaker) & live in Amsterdam (en spreek wat Nederlands). Look forward to seeing what can happen to improve article. djflem

New Netherland series Have done lot's ont this series. Wonder if you'd be interested to have a look and see if you have suggestions Djflem (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dutch East Indies[edit]

Good job on expanding the article Dutch East Indies, keep up the good work. Dank je wel. (Gunkarta (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC))

Sorry I beg to differ - you are reverting edits without discussion (edit summaries as you change the tenor of an article is hardly what can be considered discussed - also your changes are getting close to WP:3RR territory as well - and making assertions and NPOV generalisations with no WP:RS - note that some of the statements you are making as close to WP:OR without any citations to back up for WP:V SatuSuro 04:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't think we need a two paragraph rundown of the Dutch motivations for setting up the VOC - sure, the VOC needs a mention as background, but not to the detail it's provided. That sort of detail belongs on the VOC page. Anyway, I'm not sure the page can really be expanded that much more. Maybe sub articles are better.
You should also consult WP:BRD. "Discussion" is not stating your case on a talk page and then immediately reverting to your preferred change. But, that's just my opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Tnx for all comments. I know it can come as a bit of a shock when an editor like me shows up on an article the way I did. I don't avoid confrontation but I also think I always work within WP policy... albeit on the bold side of it. Back to the article, I actually think it is now complete (background section was the biggest gap) and only needs detail work. I see no WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR or WP:V issues anywhere in the current article (will be happy to work on any if pointed to them, regardless of who contributed the content), think the references are sufficient and consider requesting a new rating review. It earns it's B-class rating now and I even hope for a little more. DeVerm (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Devere, A.U.B, can you have a look at Dutch East Indies and try to sort out the references? I have done as best I can but my Dutch is not very good so have had to guess. I would rather pass than fail, but at the moment it is a fail, because the references are all over the place, though I have checked as many as I can and re-reffed them as best I can. This should go GA because it is avery well written, concise and to the point article, leading to others (the see alsos and mains in the heads of sections) so it is certainly worth a GA (to declare an interest, one of my friends at school in Cairo was called Kim Dijkstra and was adopted by Dutch parents from Indomnesia, but that is neither here nor there except he couldn't say S without making it SH, by English transliteration of course; thirty years later I have a Hungarian wife for whom S is (in English transliterartion) SH and SZ is S; I should learn by now, eh?
My sincere best wishes.
S. (Or SH or SZ). Si Trew (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I am spending some time gnoming it to polish it for grammar and refs etc, before I then do the formal GA review. Basically I am trying to do the gnoming rather than have you do it, cos it deserves good article but needs a lot of polishing. Five hours gnoming now, but certainly it will be GA by the time you and I are done with it. I should like you to look over my changes to correct any obvious mistakes, then we go to GA formal.
My sincere best wishes
Si Trew (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Simon, I'm on holiday and brought my iPad... I can't even reply to you on this talk page with it :-( I can read and check your changes though and they look good to me... but I have more to check. I need to find a PC somewhere to reply like I'm doing now and that might take a bit time... very happy you decided to do the fixes yourself now that I'm away - thanks! --DeVerm (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Skanderbeg[edit]

Thank you for the review of Skanderbeg article. I really appreciate your effort. Thank you very much.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt DeVerm no disrespect but would you read some more on the topic before you move forward, since your lack of knowledge might lead to problems in this topic. Books already used for this article are a good start and please look through talk page archives, to old editors of Scanderbeg article it is becoming very frustrating keep telling the same things over and over again. Thank you for your effort anyway, I really appreciate it. Aigest (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Aigest, I think I know more about the subject than the average reader of the article; point is that the article must be able to give readers a clear, complete and neutral picture about Skanderbeg before it can ever pass a GA review. It means that the questions I asked on the talk page are a minimum set that needs to be answered in the article (the average reader will have more questions after reading it).
Since I have done the latest GA review, I recognize that it is very annoying to repeat the same arguments over and over, which is the reason I proposed to include a FAQ on the talk page. However, information in the FAQ will need to be based on sources, not the opinion of editors. This means that it doesn't really help to state "His father was Albanian and nothing else". For that to be in the FAQ, you will have to 1) bring forward RS that shows he was Albanian plus show that all the sources that state something different are not RS. --DeVerm (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC).
We have his contemporaneous (Barletius, Muzaka, Francus) and his XXth century biographers (his main biographer being Noli but also others used in the article Hodgkinson, Frasheri etc) who claim this. The origin of family is thoroughly discussed in their books. Please read them. I mean, we have a lot of serious sources from his biographers and other serious works on Albanian history regarding that time period. They have been already used in the article. If we go around picking short unanalyzed, unreferenced and not RS sentences in 600 years of publication we might find out weird results. Eg that Scanderbeg died in 1466(Barletius and others who follow him claims January 1466) but later historians have put his death on January 1468 (ottoman chronicles, Venice, Ragusian, Papal documents etc ) which is the correct date. Or we may find out that his brother were killed by the sultan (Barletius and others who follow him claims that) in fact one of his brothers (Konstandin) probably died in Turkey, one (Reposh) died in 1430's in todays Macedonia and the other (Stanisha) helped Scanderbeg in his uprise and was still alive in 1445. That's why Scanderbeg biographers and works on Albanian history of that time period are more RS that cherry picking short sentences with no references at all, moreover from the books which are not on the topic or sometimes old newspapers or magazines. Aigest (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you understand my intentions... I do not plan to become an editor of the Skanderbeg article and I know all I'll ever want to know about him already. For me, he is an interesting person, but not so much that I would start reading biographies, let alone research his family origins. During the GA review I did, I realized the Skanderbeg article is at a point where progress towards a Good Article has become impossible and I decided to try and guide the editors on a path to break through that stalemate towards progress again. --DeVerm (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC).
Hi, I wrote a message to you on Skanderbeg's article talk page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

Hello! :) You have been mentioned several times, so please come and see. LINK Give us your impressions of sources presented there. Also, it would be wise to tell us exactly which source really cannot be used, if any. Thanks in advance. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"[edit]

Information.svg A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

deletion of the BIBLIODIVERSITY article[edit]

Hello DeVerm.

If I understood well, you asked for the deletion of my article on the concept of "Bibliodiversity". I stopped the process, as I am fully convinced there is a misunderstanding there. Please, let me explain my point of view.

1. You said the main problem is that Wiki is not a dictionnary. You are right, but it is really an encyclopedia, presenting useful concepts. For example, the article BIODIVERSITY exists - and thousand of other. This is not about vocabulary: it's about CONCEPT. I really don't understand why BIBLIODIVERSITY shouldn't be in there - just because it's a "new" concept?

2. The concept was launched in the Latin American world 15 years ago; it spreads very quickly in Spanish ("Bibliodiversidad") and in French (Bibliodiversité). The articles on Bibliodiversity exist in these 2 languages, and as far as I know, there was no problem to publish them. The english version aims to explain the concept in the english world. The article should be translated soon in Arabic, Farsi and Portuguese.

3. All the people involved in the "promotion and protection" of the Bibliodiversity are NGO, publishers, librarians, authors, etc. The aim of this promotion is totaly non commercial; it's an intelectual and "political" (independence vs. conglomerates) involvment.

I wish I was able to convince you. Let me know if you have further questions. Best,

Mr Étienne Galliand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etienne GALLIAND (talkcontribs) 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Guidance on these articles: Keep or Delete or Merge?[edit]

I am asking editors/admins for guidance on these articles:

I recently PRODed these, which triggered an editing spree but I still very much doubt if these articles belong in WP. I don't see much more than race results and rankings and when I study the guidelines, that does not seem enough. However, when I see how much work the involved editor puts into this, I start to doubt if I should bring these articles to AfD.

Also, compare these three to the 2010 and 2011 articles... If all those references make those notable, what is the impact for these previous years of the same race? Or, would you bring these to AfD too, for failing the guidelines?

Thanks for your guidance; please reply here in this section of my talk page --DeVerm (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

  • this is what AfD is for--be BOLD and use it. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact that the Championship itself as a general topic is not covered by secondary sources is telling. But considering that the 2010 and 2011 championships are well-sourced, I bet there are general sources for the event generally. The 2009 event has two independent reliable sources, so I probably would keep that, even if it's not ideal coverage. The 2008 and 2007 are weaker, for sure. I would probably merge those two into the main article, unless suitable coverage of them can be found. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • [invited comment] I concur with much of what IJethroBot says. The top level Star Mazda Championship is rather small. And the three "season results" articles are really just tabulations with little narrative. The tabulations (the finishing results) are available online via external links .. although the WP presentation is much more colorful. It is tempting to just eliminate the per-year articles, and put all their info into one article. On the other hand, there are a dozen years worth of results (although only 3 have WP articles), and every year there will be another race, with another huge results table. They cannot all fit into the main article. So, considering all that, my recommendation is to leave them all alone, as separate articles, and work on finding more commentary on the individual years (e.g. interviews from the winners, etc) and add that (as prose) into the per-year articles. --Noleander (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - good to see that this isn't a simple case because it had me puzzled. From what I read about it, I understand that starting in 2010 this championship has become an recognized step-up to the Indy series. This also explains the huge pile of references since 2010. May be it would be wise to put all pre-2010 years into one article, as a prelude to the big years starting in 2010. I'll think it over a bit more, tnx! --DeVerm (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC).
  • I've added significantly more exposition and references to the 2008 article. Next I will tackle the 2007 article and the article for the series itself. -Drdisque (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Polyacid[edit]

I contested your PROD on Polyacid, but feel free to merge it if you would like. A merge does not require a deletion discussion or a PROD, and can be done per WP:BOLD. We would want a redirect from polyacid anyways, since it is a valid search term. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Done, thanks! --DeVerm (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC).

DO not change my Article,go away![edit]

DO not change my Article,go away! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.199.127.226 (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not changing your article... just replacing the AfD template. As you can read on your talk page, you are invited to discuss this on the AfD discussion page. Thanks --DeVerm (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Vanellus-chilensis-001.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Vanellus-chilensis-001.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 03:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes I messed up with those cached pages from Commons; wouldn't mind a big red banner warning. I updated the category there now so we're good, thanks --DeVerm (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

Polyacid[edit]

Thank you for fusion the page Polyacid.

--D.P.S 14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Danilomath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danilomath (talkcontribs)

  • You're welcome, thanks :-) --DeVerm (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

Dennis Hale[edit]

I renominated. The two sources you turned up don't look reliable, and the Google Books link had only false positives. I've been completely unable to verify through reliable sources that Dennis recorded for Decca or Parlophone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello DeVerm! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

List of Dutch inventions and discoveries[edit]

Hi DeVerm, I noticed you undid my revision of List of Dutch inventions and discoveries.

I agree on your explanation on the removal of the «refimprove» template, though I do still stand by the «cleanup-reorganize». The article has been expanded so much the last few weeks that the current setup of sections is becoming unreadable and has created a huge index. I think it should be reorganised on topic or by era, see for example List of French inventions and discoveries or Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records. Perhaps the template «condense» is more specific to the problem in the article? I'd appreciate your opinion! Marjoleinkl (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there has been some activity :) I will go and have a look at the French and Russian lists to get an idea of what you mean; if things can get improved then we should :) Thanks! 190.34.220.26 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, please see my comment at the talk page of this article. Serious work required. Tony (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)