User talk:Schildewaert

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

Welcome[edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! :D

Welcome To Wikipedia! Hello, Schildewaert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay and make constructive edits. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and have a great time being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, I will always be willing to help or you can ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Holland & West Vriesland.JPG[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Holland & West Vriesland.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Bollenstreek Bloemencorso Sassenheim 2005.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Bollenstreek Bloemencorso Sassenheim 2005.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Beach at Katwijk aan Zee.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Hi Schildewaert!
We thank you for uploading Image:Beach at Katwijk aan Zee.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Ballju and schout 1667.JPG[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Hi Schildewaert!
We thank you for uploading Image:Ballju and schout 1667.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Schout en schepenen van Alkemade 1806.JPG[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Hi Schildewaert!
We thank you for uploading Image:Schout en schepenen van Alkemade 1806.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Holland[edit]

The move protection has nothing to do with the content of the page or the ongoing discussions. It's because we had a serial page move vandal who was moving all the country pages to nonsense titles. The protection does *not* bar any editing to the page, including replacing it with a redirect to Holland (disambiguation) if that is what the consensus is. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Zuid-Holland West[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Zuid-Holland West, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://articles.gourt.com/en/South%20Holland. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

September 2009[edit]

Information.svg Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Councillor, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Councillor. Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

your question about translating wikipedia articles[edit]

Just noticed that it is not all that recent, but I saw it today and made some comments that may be helpful. I ran into something like this with French->English. Noticeboard#Translating_non-English_Wikipedia_articles_without_footnotes

Elinruby (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Franconian languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch (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) 10:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Old Frankish, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frankish and Franconian (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) 04:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old Frankish, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frankish, Franconian and Old Franconian (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) 11:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Netherlands, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Shell and Phillips (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) 11:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please retract[edit]

Hello Schildewaert. Happy Wednesday to you. While I appreciate your quickly retracting the accusation of vandalism you made against me, I wonder if you'd please consider striking or otherwise withdrawing your subsequent assertion that my edit undoing your addition to Queer was performed in bad faith. I would point out that my edit included a summary citing one of Wikipedia's core content policies plus a referral to the talk page, where I explained my reasoning more fully and expressly agreed with you on one point. Your restoration (which carried no edit summary) of the changes you made to the article flies in the face of best practices and, as another editor suggested to you, looks rather like the beginning of an edit war. I'd further point out that your failure to assume good faith, coupled with your remark about the article's supposed "guardians", suggests you may be straying uncomfortably close to battleground territory. I can hardly be termed a guardian of an article I've made a grand total of two edits to, can I? In any event, all my edits on Wikipedia are made in good faith, and I'd be very grateful if you'd modify what you wrote at Talk:Queer to remove any suggestions to the contrary. Rivertorch (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've taken out the comment you referred to. You have to understand that I put a lot of work into improving this article, and then two people swooped in to delete it all without much explanation. Of course, it was natural for me to assume that you were guardians of the article who were prone to resisting every single edit, even those that were improving the article. It's also very off-putting to have to spend so much time to deal with the aftermath of this. Please wait a while before deleting the next time. You assumed that I was doing something harmful to the article. Not every editor is a vandal. Having said that, as an occasional editor, I do appreciate experts like you coming in to correct these articles (including mine) and to remove vandalism. Schildewaert (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Rivertorch, if Schildewaert does retract, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments should be kept in mind. It would be best to strike through the comment instead of removing it. Simply removing the accusation takes part of my comment to Schildewaert on that matter out of context. Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) True. The tags <s> and </s> can be used to strike comments thus: stricken comments. By "or otherwise withdraw", I was simply referring to something like an additional comment stating that the accusation is withdrawn. Schildewaert, you know how to reply to someone else's comment because you just did it. Replying here is absolutely fine; most editors watch the pages they leave comments on for replies, and I'm one of them. Please see Help:Using talk pages for more information. Anyway, I'll be off-wiki for the rest of the day, but I appreciate your prompt response and look forward to rejoining any constructive discussion at a later time. Rivertorch (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments at Talk:Queer[edit]

First of all, thanks for withdrawing your remarks about me. I really appreciate it. Second, I wonder if I might give you some unsolicited, friendly advice. I haven't checked your user contributions, but I gather from what you said to Trystan that, although you've had an account for several years and have amassed several thousand edits, you must have been toiling away mostly in little-noticed areas of Wikipedia up until now. On well-watched articles, particularly those involving topics that are controversial, spending five hours "going over the text" and then being wholesale reverted isn't the slightest bit unusual; it happens all the time, it has happened to most of us, and it really shouldn't ever be more than a minor disappointment. If you let that kind of thing get under your skin, you'll be continually in conflict with your fellow Wikipedians every time you tackle such an article.

It's not like you crafted this gorgeous sand castle and rude people came along and kicked it to smithereens. Think of it instead as you built something and provided a permanent set of blueprints, but the neighbors, citing the building code, caused it to be dismantled and all the pieces safely stored. In other words, all of your changes are still in the page history and are available for you and others to consult, recreate in part, or otherwise use to make a better article in future.

Edit warring has a very specific meaning, and in no way was Trystan's reversion (or mine) a "declaration" of war. The bold-revert-discuss (BRD) cycle is a highly effective way to find consensus and avoid edit warring, and following BRD is exactly what we've been doing. You made bold changes, we reverted, and now we're discussing. When someone short-circuits that process by reverting the reversions of several other editors, then that editor (and only that editor) is edit warring.

You asked about finding an "adjudicator who can resolve this expeditiously". This page tells you how to do that, but I think you'll find that such measures generally work only when discussion on an article's talk page has become completely unproductive. We're still in discussion mode, and we may yet be able to find consensus without resorting to extreme measures. It would really help if you'd be patient, focus exclusively on the content of the article (not the behavior of other editors), and try to recognize that policy-based objections citing WP:NOR or other hard-and-fast rules must be taken seriously and usually should be resolved first. That's my two cents, anyway, and I hope it helps. If it doesn't, the "undo" command is at your disposal. Rivertorch (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)