User talk:Gidonb/Archive 2021: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:52, 10 June 2020

Precious

balance
Thank you, Gidon, open for many languages, for quality articles on a wide spectrum of topics, such as International Society for Contemporary Music, Moroccan Wall and Dora van der Meiden-Coolsma, for the correct Netherlands, for dispute resolution, consensus building and "creating a first or better balance in many articles", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you kind words, Gerda. I really appreciate your feedback!!! gidonb (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Georgescu

Once again a deletion attempt for no good reason though this one appears political. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._Georgescu Masterknighted (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masterknighted, since I do not know that there was a political motivation, I assume that there was no political motivation involved. I do know that there was absolutely no valid reason for deleting your article. I made this point, others thought the same, and a fine article has been kept and improved! gidonb (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Ahrends

1929: Draft for a multifunctional theater hall of the progressive Schule am Meer on the German island Juist

Dear Gidon, many thanks for your appreciated corrections of my rusty English and your review. I just had to correct two things. You corrected two times that Germans considered Ahrends to belong to a "Jewish race" while I reduced that from Germans to Nazis as we should not tend to maximise. Many Germans did not think like that. This is valid for your second correction but not for your first which was definitely wrong. At that time (about 1900) there were no Nazis in Germany since the party was founded after WWI in 1920. In Germany Jews had equal rights after 1871 (foundation of German Reich). Equality was requested by Germanys citizens since revolution of 1848/49 and it was integrated in the German constitution. During the German Empire (1871–1918) developed a very comprehensive Jewish citizenship and culture. But at the same time (1870s) an antisemitism propaganda came up which was not longer religiously motivated only but also racist. The German emperor Wilhelm/William II. hated Jews and held not back with it. German Jews wanted to assimilate and to be recognized as Germans and citizens. So many of them converted to Christianity and some even changed their family name like Bruno Arons/Ahrends and his siblings in 1904. They supported the emperor, wore his beard style and were true German patriots, fought in WWI but mostly got not the recognition like non-Jews.

Regarding Nazi Germany after 1933 you are right with it but in career terms this is really not the political reason for the exclusion of Jewish intelligence in Nazi Germany. The reason was that the Nazis wanted to exclude all Jews but also so called "Aryans" of other ideological or political background like democrats, liberals, socialists or communists from German culture, economy, administration and power. They wanted to clear off all what did not fit in their belief of a German dominated "clean" culture and they believed in a worldwide Jewish power they often described as "Jewish-bolshevist world conspiracy". Starting in 1933 the Nazis tried to detract the economic fundament of German Jews. The "race" ideology is another matter which was administered to cast Jews and others out of ("mixed") families, out of society, out of Germany (in that order), later to even exterminate them. The "race" ideology had really not much to do with career terms. We should not mix that up as Wikipedia should be as exact as possible.

You included a comment to the source of the article as you believe some aspects about todays use of Ahrends' buildings and especially his first self-contained project (his own home) should be transferred to another article (or deleted). I think that it definitely belongs to the article as it shows how much his buildings in post-war and post-Nazi Germany are appreciated. For me it demonstrates the difference in official politics between now and then but also that many of his buildings/his work lasted more than one century. When his work through many of his buildings is considered as cultural heritage and some even as World Heritage Site it shows that he is part of German and world culture. This is characterising him and his work so it belongs to the article. If you look at the German version of this article which I expanded you will see there is even a list of his projects which are considered as cultural heritage or World Heritage Site today. Think about it. Best regards from Germany, Miraculamundi (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miraculamundi, glad you were super happy with 98% of my many edits! That's a very long story regarding the two that you did not like. I make these edits fast, based on (it isn't humble but the truth) wide knowledge and real POV concerns but I cannot beat the knowledge of each and every subject expert. I recommend also to you to invest your time in the article space. Thanks again for the feedback. I did learn something. Above all, happy editing!!! gidonb (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on long-term RM cleanup efforts

It would probably be better to: a) if this RM closes to move, then re-propose the other one for a move later (3 months? people don't like a lot of back-to-back RMs), citing this one as precedent and look for others; or b) if this RM closes as no-consensus, give it a rest a while and try again at another article later; or c) if this RM closes with a clear consensus against moving it, just forget about it and let those fighting for it have their parenthetical disambiguation, at least until WP:AT is clarified yet again to even more strongly disfavor PARENDIS when there are alternatives. It seemed to me to already do this sufficiently, but we still keep having these discussions, so it evidently isn't getting its point across clearly enough. Anyway, patience is a virtue. It can sometimes take a couple of years to clean up a category, because individual editors at any given article may resist change just to resist change, and particular wikiprojects or other knots of editors may systematically oppose for territorial reasons.

Consensus can form slowly, especially if any "don't you touch my articles!" personalities are involved. My efforts to get any consistency at all in animal breed article names was stonewalled by a three- then two-editor tagteam for about 3 years, and I'm still not done yet, only about 90%. Because of the extreme tempers some of these people bring, and a particular "fuck that SMcCandlish guy" attitude in particular, I only do a couple of RMs in that area every few months. Policy- and source-based arguments ultimately win out over temper tantrums. Some editors have taken a more direct approach, e.g. the efforts to get compliance with MOS:JR (see Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. RM now running, probably the last major one); that whole mess has been cleaned up in about 3 months, but it took an RfC, a change at MoS, and a long string of RMs, with a lot of heated words, to get there. I'm taking the less contentious approach and just massaging things into consistency and trying to avoid flare-ups of conflict. That may be necessary for geographical name stuff, especially if it everycomes to removing unnecessary disambiguation from US place names like Alameda County, California. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish Thank you for the strategic advice and for sharing your expertise and experiences, both here and on the discussion page! I appreciate that you fight for consistent quality at Wikipedia. I have single handedly corrected almost the entire Dutch geography domain from nl.wiki styled paratheses to en.wiki styled comma delimitted dabs. It was a huge effort initially confronted by folks rolling my changes back, because why would we deviate from the standard at the Dutch Wikipedia (???!!!), then nearly completed but for a few cases where I would have needed special rights to move. These were actually completed by other contributors so my change was accepted over time! A setback was a user, he calls himself "fixer", who moved dabs from the Netherlands to the provinces. I moved them back again. Now only "Limburg (Netherlands)" is left over. Here I also had to suggest change to its Belgian counterpart, then was asked why one Belgian province and not the other, so that's how we met at the "Jardin du Luxembourg". I am glad we did! gidonb (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. If any of those NL cleanup moves were conducted by RM discussions, they're good precedents to cite; see how the Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. RM is citing previous, essentially identical cases. I do this a lot in my WP:BREEDDAB moves, too, and it has made the difference in many cases. The average RM respondent, in a case that isn't stark obvious, mostly cares about whether this is how we normally do things, or whether someone's trying to do something weird. The more evidence they have that the move is routine, the more likely they are to support it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will study it all and take into account the next time I attempt to make an article move. V&D is another one that annoys me. It was moved from its long lived name to its short lived name, under false pretenses, after the chain went bankrupt (there would have been some logic to the short name when the chain still existed). I missed the discussion. On the same topic, I still have open CfDs from June 29. I am curious what would be your take would on these. gidonb (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I managed to move Vroom & Dreesmann to its historic name. gidonb (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Localization

Dear Gidon, about Jensen Localization article: Could you be so kind of explaining me what I am doing wrong that the article is being set for deletion after I have added the required links and deleted the pro-marketing info?

Kind regards, Nicolas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasMartinFontana (talk • contribs) 07:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Martin Fontana, the problem is with the references. These are not independent. gidonb (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb, could you be more specific about independent references, as I am a quite beginner in wiki articles creation. Do you mean like newspaper or news agencies will be acceptable references for example?(talk • contribs) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (CEST)

Nicolas Martin Fontana, please check out Verifiability, WP:NOR, and WP:POV for more details. Especially the first among the three. gidonb (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb thank for the info, I will have a look, as I wrote in the deletion talk, sorry for the newby troubles I am causing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasMartinFontana (talk • contribs) 13:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NP, this is not personal! Just doing my WP chores. The article was deleted. gidonb (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joost de Valk

Hey Gidonb, thanks for your edits on Joost de Valk. My main concern is that the subject is suffering from a decision to do most of his work through his company; the citation from The Guardian did mention Yoast, which has its own collection of substantial sources -- there's no question Yoast has demonstrated its significance. What would you suggest here? Supplementing sources between the two articles? Wondering what the best way to clear up the issues would be. Crud muffins (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joost or Crud Muffins, if you have valid sources please add them to the article. As off now you or this person do not meet our notability standard and should be deleted from en.wiki gidonb (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt

Tansfermarkt should not be cited in Wikipedia. As reference, it qualifies as a self-published source since most of its content is user-generated; as an external link, it runs afoul of point #1 of WP:ELNO. There being a plethora of different football stats websites out there, it is not a unique resource, and most of transfermarkt's content (provided it can be reliably sourced) would be included in a featured article. Please do not re-add it to articles. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sputnik, can you backup these claims with reliable sources? In any case, after your comments I added it as an external link, not as a reference to anything. Imho a good compromise, but you seem to be eager to create an edit war around Transfermarkt. This is far from my editing style! gidonb (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to leave for work in a few minutes, and so don't actually have the time to explain myself sufficient detail right now. I will of course do so in due course. Please do not take my silence in the mean time as acceptance of your position. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sputnik, good luck with your other activities! You seem to be knowledgeable on sports at Wikipedia. I'm an eclectic editor myself, always happy to learn about problems and solutions, where these exist. gidonb (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that I'm not so short on time, let me explain the problems with Transfermarkt. Almost all of the content in the site's database is created by the site's users, not its staff. To quote the Transfermarkt login page: Whether player, manager, club, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user you can edit and complete almost all data yourself. Simply click the gear, fill in the form, and click submit. Furthermore, the site's terms of service explicitly say that Transfermarkt does not vouch for the veracity of user submitted content. This issue is also not just in the abstract. A few years ago User:Zombie433 was banned for, among other things, adding false information to Transfermarkt so that they could then use it as a source to add the same info to Wikipedia. So a decision was reached by the WikiProject Football that Transfermarkt should not be used in articles within scope the project. I trust you see now why I'm so reluctant to allow the link the website to stand. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, edit warring, ownership by supposedly "allowing" edits and, moreover, threatening colleague editors with bans is not my style. I keep away from all that. Of course, you may be luckier picking fights with others, if that is what you are looking for. Personally I prefer to extend help to other users. My recommendation to all others is to do exactly the same. It makes editing more pleasant. gidonb (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zwart-Wit '28

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zwart-Wit '28 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zwart-Wit '28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath: Result of this unnecessary procedure was speedy keep. The nomination seriously conflicted with the policies of Wikipedia and these of the WikiProject of the nominator. 18:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Robin Schmidt

The article Robin Schmidt has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. PK T(alk) 18:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result was keep. Absolutely no case for deletion! gidonb (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Peeters

Hello Gidonb and thank you very much for your various corrections April 9th = 4 items.

Revision as of 22:25, 9 April 2017 There are a few items which, in my view need further review and which I propose as follows:

(1) Solo exhibitions should read: Solo exhibitions (selected). Reason: this is a selection of exhibitions, the photographer had several more exhibitions, the list is not complete. I notice the mention (selected) is common practice with other pages of photographers: example 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Gruyaert solo exhibitions (selected) Collections (selected) example 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Killip (selected joint exhibitions) example 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Bohm (selected group exhibitions)

(2) This also goes for 'Publications' (selected)- as per (1)

(3) Line 44 Catalogs added seems not an accurate description. These are not exhibition or museum catalogs but refer to (a selection) of publications of a portfolio ie several pages of the work of the photographer, published in photo magazines, in various countries.

Therefore would suggest under heading Publications (selected)

-Portfolios in photo magazines. 
-Books - as is -

Again, thanks for your revisions and kind assistance --FredMertens (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FredMertens, thank you for your warm feedback. I edit tons of articles, very quickly, slashed this article by a lot and rewrote/condensed most section titles, so I definitely can make mistakes or overlook something. Overall you were a true sport about my drastic changes. I appreciate this. As for your comments, selected (item 1 and 2) is not an improvement. Lists are generally incomplete and by writing selected above a list we may create the impression that this isn't usually the case. Further: where exhibitions and selected exhibitions essentially mean the same thing (because of lists generally being incomplete), exhibitions without selected has a clear preference as it is far more focused. You claim that other stuff exists but the error may be at the other stuff. It probably is. Still not a wasted effort; I'll improve the other articles if my suspicion is correct. I expect to find something to improve in your item 3. Will look at this soon! Thanks again, gidonb (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gidonb for the clarification on 'selected'. Point understood and well taken! Thank you also in regard to item 3. Kind regards --FredMertens (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could tell these are basically articles. Please stick to their original names as titles. gidonb (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After titles were not improved, I have removed the entire section. The article is better without it! gidonb (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baron de Wael

the last de waal, jan, died 20 years ago, so nobody "wants to be baron " as you quoted the more the title and the historic acts, docs are in wien registered in their files as quoted address of the institution Have a closer look at the books and docs quoted. If you only "google"to check, that looks to me not so professional the topic is the following: because of the anniversary of the reign of Karl VI of 300 years; thousands of unstudied documents of his time are currently studied to get more insight in the politics of those days. especially "The Wael Baron " is a topic: explain: the southern Netherlands were occupied by the austrians ( lower austrian countries) as we know until 1790 and then the >Northern part of the Netherlands were put with the southern part ( now belgium) and luxembourg together,and in 1814 the Kingdom of the Netherlands was founded under Kong William I of the Netherlands.

The question here is; why did Karl VI give sijmon the austrian title of baron ? Was he (sijmon) spying for the austrians ?. What we know from history that there was a tension between the netherlands (north netherland and the lower österreichische Lande (southern part ) Was Karl intensions to extend his territory towards the northern part of the Netherlands, and thatswhy he wanted to influence important people in those times ( like sijmon?) So this is the topic why this article could be of importance. we will know much more about this when the scientists finish studying KARL VI.

PS I do not like the sentence "bit fraught" as everything can be proven by the official authorities in Wien as put in reference. I made the effort to get more insight in older dutch history influenced by the austrians which occupied the sauthernpart of holland, I hope you appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claas de Wael, we do not allow Original Research in Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oke got it, well ask official statements with reference code

Work has become a bit fraught, so I will not be able to review in depth as I intended. I have struck my "keep" in accordance with your assessment of the sources. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dlohcierekim. All this is without prejudice. The person could be notable. We just do not know that until sufficiently referenced. gidonb (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gidonb,

1.- I can also put the crest of "de Wael" with picture. I just have to see how I can do it technically.

2.-Also a picture with Baron Evert (1900-1956) with HM Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. They were very good friends. Evert through the family of his grandmother, were direct descendants of the Counts of Holland. HM Wilhelmina was direct ancestor (11 generations) 7th cousin's direct descendant (5 generations) from baron Evert.

if you think this could make the articles more interesting, pls advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talk • contribs) 09:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claas de Wael, as long as the article is there, you can add almost anything over which you own copyright. However, I also need to refer you to WP:NOTINHERETED. Enjoy the editing! gidonb (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is my opinion that all nobility are inherently noble. Don't know how much water that holds today. Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) never achieved consensus.]] The sources we have would probably be sufficient to establish da Wael as a noble house. And that was the basis for my keep. Perhaps we can userfy and he can run it through Articles for Creation. Of course, once deleted, all efforts to source the thing on the part of the project as a whole will cease. Sometimes it takes more than a week to find sources on 18th century subjects.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if this Sijmon de Wael was a baron and if someone inherited that. It's a claim hat creator made and that I could find only in some amateur family trees. My comment above refers to any knowledge of the members of the house of orange, if real. I also met 2 reigning kings and 1 such queen. 2 out of 3 were Dutch. It doesn't make me 1 bit notable! Baron is lesser in the failed policy you referred to. gidonb (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All,

First of all want to express my gratitude for looking at this subject, your time and effort to understand it.

1.- I saw you did not approve the article and already destroyed it, and read the comments why.

a.- the books quoted were issued in 2004 and 2012 which mentioned the topic. (not dusty old books, as mentioned) b.- the more the austrian officials confirmed the fact, and will publish a new publication about Karl VI and mentioning sijmon and his patent letter confirming his austrian (not Dutch!) title. c.- if this subject was publicised many times in google already, no effort would be made to contact you. d.- I do understand the load of articles you have to look at and the time you have to invest to check everything out, but... if the person in question, who has to decide, is not 100% fluent in dutch and german language, then it is difficult to check this topic and read the send in articles.

Well anyway thank you again , and we will not address you anymore regarding this subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talk • contribs) 10:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claas de wael, I contest the notion that my opinions are more valid because of the languages I speak. There were several contributors to the discussion. All raised valid points and concerns. WP is more successful when more diverse. Also please stop vandalizing my talk page. It is OK for you to empty your talk page. It's not OK for you to censor my talk page. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the message. I do understand your point. When the study of Wien, Austria will be publicised, I will come back to you in due course. Thanks again for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talk • contribs) 12:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Memorial (Netherlands)

The memorial, a few days after it was unveiled

Hi Gidonb,

I noticed that you have renamed the page Lancaster Monument (Beuningen, the Netherlands) into Lancaster Memorial (Netherlands). I also saw that you renamed the article on the Memorial in Weiswampach in Luxemburg. I disagree with your action. There are dozens of Lancaster momuments in the Netherlands, and this causes ambiguity. I think that the title of the artilce must refer to the specific monument in Beuningen. Your motivation was probably that there is currently only one article about a Dutch Lancster Memorial in the English WP, but this is of secondary importance compared to mentioning the location. The article is simply not about "THE" Lancastermonument in the Netherlands. It suggests there is only one.

Would you please be so kind to revert both actions? Thanks, Take Mirrenberg (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Take Mirrenberg, I will respond to your inquiry soon. gidonb (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Take Mirrenberg, it is nowhere implied that this is the only such monument in each country. The dab needs to be as large scale and concise as possible to make it well understood to which EXISTING INTERNAL article the name refers. Has nothing to do with all that is out there in the real world! This means that if there are, let's say, 100 similar monuments in the Netherlands AND in Luxembourg and only one of each has an article, then the articles are exactly at the correct names. Hence the move! Now if you create out of these two hundred only one single third article for, let's say, a monument in Raalte, Netherlands, the correct names would be:

Lancaster Memorial (Overijssel)
Lancaster Memorial (Gelderland)
Lancaster Memorial (Luxembourg)

etc. You should not get to towns in the dab (and even less so double locations) until there is an absolute need! gidonb (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gidonb, thanks for clarifying! Ok, I get the picture. I think we have a difference in naming approach between the NL wiki and EN wiki here. At the NL wiki we like refinements between parenthesis. EN wiki does it the minimalist way. Ok, if this is the convention.

Still I think that the suffixes (Gelderland) or (Overijssel) are really a bad idea. To dutch ears it sounds like a joke. It's concise, but mentioning the province is obsolete and therefore unclear. Provinces are not comparable with states in the US, which are indeed used for clarifying locations. Provinces are in no way related to the monument, so I don't see the advantage above identifying it directly by municipality. I would also think it is conflicting with WP:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names. It's known as the Lancaster Memorial in Beuningen, and not the Lancaster Memorial in Gelderland.

I thought of the following example: imagine you would have a Museum of Modern Art in Amsterdam and a second one in Rotterdam. Then the naming convention would lead to Museum of Modern Art (Noord-Holland) and Museum of Modern Art (Zuid-Holland). That wouldn't be clear, I think. Take Mirrenberg (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Take Mirrenberg, it's a bit preaching the choir as I consistently promote this very same spatial sanity throughout en.wiki. I would skip the provinces in favor of more recognized units without thinking twice and often remove such detail from articles. We do use provinces here by the convention that I explained above. The examples of monuments that I saw were in smaller towns so my writeup followed suit. I hope you will join me to spread the word as you share the same insights. gidonb (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch soccer

There is a discussion taking place, that you might be interested in here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn, please immediately stop the mass moving, redirection and deletion of articles on notable subjects. WP has procedures for discussions and decisions should not be about who is the most insistent on pressing buttons. If you really believe an article is not notable, please AfD it with good reasons, so the community can have its say. So far that "did not work out so well" although damage was limited by your discussion buddy by self-closing the AfD with the wrong summary. Previous closure of a similar discussion by a honest broker ended in a clear speedy keep but his totally unacceptable self-closure disallowed this clear signal once again. After the clear community verdicts on your actions, also at the request for undeletion page, you have the bluntness to continue the attack on a Wikipedia subject as if you guys did nothing wrong. If you do not have good reasons for deleting an article, just add a {{cn}} template at the end of a particular phrase that you find questionable and you feel needs referencing. This is how I do it. Editing at Wikipedia should not be about stressing each other. gidonb (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the discussion itself, judging from various community decisions and its contents it is way too detached from reality for me to participate or react in. Reacting to such a heap of nonsense may dignify the discussion or your roles in recent Dutch soccer actions and that wouldn't be a wise thing to do. The single upside that I do see in the discussion is that you guys get to blow some steam off after rather strong verdicts from many different peers, who treasure our rules. Yet another process in which I shouldn't intervene. You too are volunteers at Wikipedia and perhaps do make positive contributions in other areas. I hope you do. These kinds of discussions allow people to regroup, ideally also reflect, and move on. gidonb (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veeam

Hi, Gidonb and thank you for your message.
In 2013 I creation protected that particular article title following the outcome of this 2011 AfD discussion. Looking back now in 2017, and considering the history of the article Veeam Software, I have un-creation protected [[[Veeam]]. I note that the article does have some issues, but that's a matter to be discussed on its talk page.
Please fell free to ask me about this, or any other Wikipedia related questions you might have.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete/Shirt58, thank you for lifting a limitation in order to create the redirect. I was not trying to improve the article, just to make it accessible for users as is. I'm sure that the protection was relevant four years ago, however, time has passed and my request was responsive to the current situation. That was the only point I was trying to make. Thank you for your support! One more point: please try to keep discussions together. My page, your page, it doesn't matter. Things are easier to follow for others when at one place and the wikified names ping users anyway. Someone may want to look back at our interaction one day, hopefully, to reach the conclusion that what we did made great sense. You stand correct that talk pages are good places to discuss all matters related to an article but this one was a personal request to obtain editing rights. Thank you again for your awesome assistance! Best, gidonb (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan M. Broekman

"Dear Gidon, Many thanks for considering corrections in the Wiki Page about my Life and Work (of Jan M. Broekman). I do appreciate very much, but have one urgent question: You changed on 9/18/2017 at 11:43 my name of the English edition of the Wiki page from "Jan M. Broekman" to "Jan Broekman" on the top of the page and under the Photo. You argument, as I understood, is that middle names do not matter in a Wiki communication. In my case, my name was identical to the name of my father and my grandfather, so that I was always named "Jan M" in family circles, and adapted the "Jan M. Broekman" formula to ALL my publications. So your change of my name has deep feelings and a life history. Could you PLEASE be so kind to UNDO your mentioned correction? MANY thanks indeed! Kindly, Jan M. Broekman -----" --Meinolf Wewel (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan M, I understand the request however Jan Broekman is 3 times more common. Many articles refer to you first as Jan Broekman, then as Jan M, possibly because of your affection to the latter. For example here:

So while I look sympathetically at your request and personal story as an impartial WP editor I am actually against the idea. It's a matter of where I put my accents. Another editor may be less particular about your name and be, for example, really upset about an apparent conflict of interest that interest me less. We don't always how information arrives here and I'm vehemently against punishing people for honesty. I would let the whole thing go and please do not fall into an ownership trap either. Just sit back and watch if and how the entry will develop. We are not a place where people publish their own biographies (and get somewhat emotional about how they were commonly referred to) but a serious encyclopedia developing serious articles. Some users share information. I'm cool with that. If you can prove that Jan M. is your common name, as others refer to you, that may change things. From my research others refer to you as Jan Broekman and Jan M. is common only to bibliographies, where your personal style is copied. gidonb (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gidonb, I know Jan M. Broekman since 1970. I published 1971 his “Structuralism” in my function of executive director of the Karl Alber Publishing House. Jan M. Broekman designed with me in the following years the encyclopedic series “Kolleg Rechtstheorie”. All ten volumes of that series, including his own book “Recht und Anthropologie” were published under his proper name Jan M. Broekman. The “M.” (for ‘Maurits’) does truly belong to his name. His writing to you informed me how it came biographically to this ‘M’. The name ‘Jan M. Broekman’ was before this information already evidently the title of my German article as well as the designed English text and the attached photos.

Your changes of his name caused me to search in my library and look after all publications in several languages of Jan M. Broekman, which I possess. That investigation indicated that all publications were with the “M” in the name Jan M. Broekman. This addition of the “M.” is also important because it avoids any possibility of confusion with Jan Broekman, who is the Vice-President Global Engineering at CB&I.

Apart from the problem with the name, I must ask you to also delete the expression used in the first line after the indication of his birth place Voorburg: “... a Dutch-Belgian philosopher” because the indication “Dutch-Belgian” does not exist officially. This is a difficult issue in a three-lingual country where Flemish, German and French are constitutionally legitimized languages. My original sentence should be restored: please mention after “in Voorburg: The Netherlands,” the words: “lives since 1968 in Belgium”.

Since 10 years I work for Wiki – the first years under pseudonym and later under my real name “Meinolf Wewel” (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinolf_Wewel). I work since years as an examiner with global user account. My total number of handlings is 2.993, without any occurrence of blocking.

The “Jan M. Broekman” as an English article is not my first in the English Wikipedia. I have always consulted a translator, because my humanistic education emphasized Latin and Ancient Greek – an emphasis that never created any disadvantage. A change of the title of an article never happened during my Wikipedia work.

I do ask you urgently to provide my article and its photo its complete and correct name and change the language/nationality issue, in particular because I understand Wikipedia as an encyclopedia in the sense of Jimmy Wales. Please also consult my contribution to the 10th anniversary of Wikipedia in the book: “Everything About Wikipedia”(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Allesueberwikipedia.pdf).

--Meinolf Wewel (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time I have corrected the issue based on the relevant arguments and thank you for your efforts.Meinolf Wewel (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your "move". Articles are not moved through copy and paste or delete and save. Also no valid arguments were raised in your narrative above to make this change. It's a series of misconceptions leading to wrong conclusions. I'll get back to this later. I do want to tweak the article as well. gidonb (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

Thank you for your feedback. Would you care to consider giving your thoughts also on the other ones in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 24? Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chicbyaccident. Any time and in this case middle of the night. Thank you for the well considered nominations and caring so much about getting the categorization right. Awesome! gidonb (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Blair roles and notability

Since Blair is in a bunch of relatively unknown films and web series, the filmography should only include notable entries, ones that already have Wikipedia pages. Also essays and blog write-ups shouldn't have to be listed in publications. Many journalists and writers publish stuff all the time. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is definately place for improvement on what to show in the article! gidonb (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When the article had only been the one notable film, I didn't think it had a chance to survive notability, but it looks better now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Thank you for caring! gidonb (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Sang des Rothschild

You seem to be under the impression that Le Sang des Rothschild is an article in a magazine rather than a book. It's a book. - Nunh-huh 03:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check and fix if needed. Thank you regardless for raising the concern. Will put my findings here in a bit. gidonb (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a concern, it's a fact. -Nunh-huh 03:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!!! You're right. I will fix this right away. gidonb (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing done. gidonb (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked all and left these references in better shape than I found these. Again, the input was much appreciated. Next time please give it a little more time. The rushed approach with reverts is not recommended. Communication works much better. gidonb (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I communicated. The rushed approach to change correct references into incorrect references is also not recommended. You changed several articles, all of which correctly identified the reference as a book. That ought to have been a clue. Usually when people consult a source, they know if it's a magazine or a book. You can't just presume they were all wrong and you are right, you have to verify they were wrong and you are right. The time to check your facts and "make your findings" is before, not after, you make those changes and have been informed they were wrong. Sorry, editors changing correct information to incorrect information here presses my buttons, especially when it's on the basis of presumption (publisher also publishes a magazine, therefore all its publications are magazines) rather than say, fact checking gone wrong. I recognize that this was an error and not an intended consequence, but changing incorrect information back to correct information is not something I'm going to apologize for, rushed or not. - Nunh-huh 05:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nunh-huh, when editing a lot, there will occasionally be mistakes. The important part is to learn from these. That was my process and also my feedback. Best, gidonb (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Line the Label

On 2 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Line the Label, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that so many people wanted a Line the Label jacket that the company's server crashed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Line the Label. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Line the Label), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goes and Oss soccer teams

Hoi, weer eentje bezig om pagina's van hoofdklasse clubs te verwijderen. Goes en Oss '20 zijn verwijderd. Heb ze laten restoren en staan weer terug als Draft. In de historie kan je wel zien wie de droplul is. --Sb008 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sb008, thanks for letting me know. Let me think about this. Meantime I'm concentrating the discussion:

Links for VV Goes: VV GOES, Draft:VV Goes, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#VV GOES, nl:VV GOES, User talk:Sb008#Speedy deletion nomination of VV GOES
Links for Oss '20: OSS '20, SV OSS '20, Draft:SV Oss '20, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#SV OSS '20, nl:SV OSS '20, User talk:Sb008#Speedy deletion nomination of SV OSS '20
Links for both: User talk:RHaworth#Restore

Feel free to add to my text, if I missed any important link! gidonb (talk)

If have seen de discussion and the doubtful reasoning. My advice is to work those article up to the same level as their Dutch equivalent but with plenty of sources. Only then you should admit it for a draft check. The Banner talk 13:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Banner, thank you for this advice! Just to clarify, which reasoning in the discussions do you consider "doubtful"? gidonb (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The doubtful reasoning was the shouting argument and the A7-argument (Article about a club, society or group, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Dodgy reasoning for speedy removals. The Banner talk 16:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. On the other hand, the article names were plainly wrong. This make articles vulnerable. It shouldn't make the articles vulnerable, yet for some odd reason it does. Hence we need to review the article names. I make it my mission to add and improve useful information and to resolve problems, not to get into unnecessary fights. This is why I wanted to think things over a bit. Your input is much appreciated! gidonb (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have a plan for VV Goes. Started executing. Meanwhile I'll think about Oss '20. gidonb (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For creating wonderful articles on notable works of architecture and design E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, E.M.Gregory!

Leo Barjesteh

Leo (Ferydoun) Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn

Dear Gidon,

You have redirected a page I created and gave it a new name. The person I wrote about has the family name Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn. I have the genealogy in front of me (Kwartierstatenboek 2000, Koninklijk Nederlandsch Genootschap boor Geslacht- en Wapenkunde). Leo and Ferydoun are both first names used by him. You dropped the Barjesteh part and that is his male line, and therefore has preference above the other names. Could you please restore the page to its former edition?

Thanks,

Hassan Darakehi (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Hassan[reply]

Changed the name accordingly. So what is Ferydoun? An alias? What is this person's legal name and what is his common name? gidonb (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere it says L.A. In order to sort this out, can you also tell me which name is represented by the letter A? gidonb (talk)

What is this person's date and location of birth. With the genealogical documents in front of you, you should be able to add that detail. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agggghh, I am a beginner in this. I just had typed a lot of info … in short: the Kwartierstatenboek on page 73 gives as Christian names: Leonardus Alexander Ferydoun, and as family name: Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn, which is consistent with his genealogy. It also give place and date of birth which I will add. Thank you! Hassan Darakehi (talk)Hassan —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Darakehi|Hassan, NP. What is the rest of the birth date? It should be in there. Has a Persian father and a Dutch mother? Can you correct all cited article titles? Cookies is not a title! gidonb (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Persian father and Dutch mother. The Kwartierstatenboek gives a very elaborate genealogy, but of course that is to be expected from a genealogist …. Hassan Darakehi (talk)Hassan —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! What is the rest of the birth date? gidonb (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add real titles for the two below? Pub dates for all? Author names? gidonb (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cookies op ed.nl - ed.nl". www.ed.nl.
"Artikelen". www.ngv.nl.

Shabir Isoufi

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Shabir Isoufi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Giant Snowman 07:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you removed my change, then re-entered it, but left this unnecessary message? Not the best sequence. Nevertheless I know you as someone who makes a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Just be careful with the buttons and when you undo your changes, please undo all of them. gidonb (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment of Israeli neighborhoods

I have opened an RFC for several of the Israeli cities that I think are un-encyclopedic. You were involved in the template's creation. Therefore, I appreciate input from you at that RFC. Thank you. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of RFC of stub articles about Norwegian mountain

I would like to inform you that an an RFC has been opened to discuss what should be done with the stubs of Norwegian mountains. I am posting this notice since you had participated in the AFD for the mountains. Therefore, if you or any interested page stalkers / editors would like to chime in, please make your way to the RFC now. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol?

Hi Gidonb,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Insertcleverphrasehere, for considering me! I do patrol new pages, although in the past more extensively than at present. If it becomes a focus again, I will join the project! gidonb (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Pecker

This

I object! I am *never* known as David Pecker!> Oh, wait, I see what you mean now. As you were... Guy (Help!) 07:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jacob van den Belt

The article Jacob van den Belt has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Natureium (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is notable by WP:FOOTYN. Also by WP:GNG. Hence the Prod was removed. Thanks for notifying! gidonb (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Gidonb, Thanks for your kind review of the Associativity-based routing article. I have further improved on the article in providing additional sources (please see article). Also, I think the related protocol extension work must be added since they are closely related to the article. It was previously removed without explanation. The previous industry writeup can be removed since there is no direct sources to this protocol. But the TRW work has a formal source (report) on this protocol, which I had found on the web and added to it. Hope you and others will agree with me on making the article more completed. Thank you. Abr1993 (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Lennox

Hi Gidonb, I'd like you to revert your Non Admin close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lola Lennox. There was no clear consensus for Keep. Whilst the headcount was ahead 4-2 afds are not decided that way, they are decided by the arguments. "Weak keep" per policy is not a strong argument when others go into details. There was only one keep worth considering and that was a from someone with a vested interest who lied about what the sources said. Clearly no consensus, let alone a clear one. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme, thank you for writing me. I'll examine these comments soon! If justified I'll probably reopen. gidonb (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme, I double checked and stand behind my decision. Thank you for raising your concerns with me! gidonb (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lola Lennox. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Munsif Daily

You've been here for long enough and have some stellar contributions.So, please read WP:AADD, as to participating in AfDs.∯WBG^converse 10:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll take another look. Never a bad idea to refresh one's skills. Thanks also for the compliment! gidonb (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that you continue your tirade against Waggie's motivation and incompetency across multiple AfDs, despite being asked to tone down your hyperbole, I am willing to drag you to AN, for a review of your behavior.It's ironic that you state Please leave civilized messages at the top of your t/p but indulge in such pathetic behavior over a series of good-faith nominations.If you believe the nominations to be an extremal disgrace, open an AN thread and ask for all to be snow-kept.∯WBG^converse 08:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack van den Berg

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jack van den Berg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack van den Berg until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gave my opinion. Now it is up to the rest to decide. gidonb (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Jack van den Berg. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zackmann08, fixed. Thank you! gidonb (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath: result was simple keep. gidonb (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan van Raalte

An article you recently created, Jan van Raalte, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the article. My bad that I did not check the reference that was in the source. Sorry about that! gidonb (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My AfD nominations

Hi there, I wanted to discuss your comments about me at the various AfD discussions. It would seem prudent to "clear the air", so to speak.

Firstly, you seem to be operating under the assumption that everyone sees the same search results you do. This is not the case. It's common knowledge that search engines can vary widely in the results offered even between two browsers on the same exact computer, nevermind in the results offered between users in vastly different countries. Please remember this before suggesting that someone is lazy or stating that they're "blindly nominating" articles even after they've repeatedly stated they performed the reasonable searches outlined in WP:BEFORE.

I'm still really not sure why you continue to make these assertions that I'm not doing anything constructive. I withdrew one nomination because WP:SIGCOV was found that I hadn't seen in my own searches, and I then summarized some of that SIGCOV for the article. On another, I performed the consensus-mandated merge myself. I agree that finding and summarizing new sources isn't as easy as removing content that fails WP:V and WP:PROMO, but removing content like "Deepika has a long tradition of going for bold innovations. It introduced many changes in Malayalam journalism. The following is but a sample of its impressive achievements..." and "Blessed with the lofty vision and the searing perspective of great Oriya litterateur Kalindi Charan Panigrahi and nurtured by the able hands of his illustrious daughter and the state’s first woman Chief Minister Nandini Satpathy]], the paper set out to offer readers a new experience in and taste of reading." is still demonstrably constructive.

Despite your apparent belief to the contrary, I don't believe in nominating a "clearly notable" topic at AfD just to get an article cleaned up. I ask you this, if this was the case, why would I go through clean up these articles before nominating? A few had already been scrubbed, but most hadn't.

I feel I've been polite and professional with you and I assure you that I am listening to your concerns. However, I also want to point out that expecting me to spend time adding sources with passing mentions to articles that I don't feel meet inclusion guidelines (and have yet to be closed at AfD) is not a reasonable expectation.

Thank you for your time and best wishes to you. Waggie (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil Breetveld

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Virgil Breetveld. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 12:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a constructive edit hence the reversal as vandalism is, ironically, itself vandalism. Please do not use these buttons without reasonable cause. You do this a lot, also with others. Only on this page you have used it twice, the sole person to do so. Also please read WP:OWN as you do not own the articles you have worked on. We all work together on this encyclopedia. gidonb (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands of Israel

Hi Mr Gidonb. I'm had seen what you did. Good job. So sorry because I was do nothing. After I created that's page, they moved page to Draft. Because many time like that, so... I'm discouraged and I was decide leave English wikipedia, I will never back. You do everything for page List islands of Israel. Thank you ! Hope best thing for you ! God bless you ! Thank you ! Đông Minh (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Đông Minh! Don't give up on us yet! Just stick at least one reference in each article you create. I hope to see you back here! gidonb (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Civil servants by nationality has been nominated for discussion

Category:Civil servants by nationality, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result was keep. gidonb (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hans van Houwelingen

Hi Gidonb, Thank you for your help with the article about prof. Van Houwelingen. If I may ask, could you please explain to me why you changed Hans C. van Houwelingen back to Hans van Houwelingen and removed the C. from te name in the info box? Like many scientist, Van Houwelingen is known in academia with the first letter of his middle name. I incidentally left it out when first publishing the page. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fellows_of_the_American_Statistical_Association. Thank you in advance, Laurier (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Laurier: Thank you so much for creating this article! It's a good addition to en.wiki. The article was moved per common name although there are other important reasons why we should not use the name as suggested by you. Common name is a sufficient reason. It is evident that this academic is known as Hans van Houwelingen from the current references that you added and from the bulk of other sources on the web. For example, there is a Hans van Houwelingen Award in honor of this scholar. Not a Hans C. Van Houwelingen Award. Your argument above is an other stuff exists argument which we reject at Wikipedia. Some of the other cases should have a middle initial, many should not, and we do not want to copy mistakes from one article to another! Rather we look at every case by itself and do not use other Wikipedia articles as a reference for anything. gidonb (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gidonb, thank you for your reply. I never heard of 'common name' and 'other stuff exists argument', and will try to find information about that. I plan to translate the article to Dutch soon, but there already is a Hans van Houwelingen in the Wikipedia in Dutch, who is an artist. Do you have any suggestions? Laurier (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With some help, I found the information about common names and other stuff exists argument. Laurier (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Thanks for the updates. Good luck with nl.wiki gidonb (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nayanova University

Thank you again for the notice about article deletion nomination. While not denying the correctness of edit on Samara article presuming a University to be a diploma mill is quite insulting, especially when wrongly done and with no sources. Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 12:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Besuglov.S. I did not say that Nayanova University is a diploma mill. Such a concern, however, arose after a connection with an Italian accreditation mill was suggested on the Samara page. To be on the safe side, I wanted a discussion to be held and would agree with any reasonable outcome. gidonb (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misunderstood you Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 16:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! gidonb (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know I definitely got you wrong. Althogth I was learning here all my life (since 1991) and working for the last 12,5 years I never heard of International Parliament for Security and Peace and our work with them. It's a pity that we didn't catch this 2008 year edit in Samara article in last 12 years. Excuse me once again and thank you for the note and opportunity to update and improuve the article. Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 13:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me? As I veered off in the article improvement direction I'm not sure what arguments should be presented to avoid article deletion. I was hoping to show academic status by providing information about international cooperation as international sources seem the most independent sources possible and ratings and events coverage as notability criteria. Can you tell me what concerns may be left unanswered? Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 08:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besuglov.S, I have closed the discussion as keep/withdrawn. I have renamed the article and engaged in cleanup. You can take it from here. I appreciate your work on the article since my nomination. Do you still use all these buildings? What is in each of them now? gidonb (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response & cleanup. I guess nomination was just right stimulus to improve the article and hope it does not end with this positive outcome. Yes, the first (1-4 grades & 6-7 grades) and second (5th & 8-11 grades) building used for school education. Third building undergoes recertification process so no activities there yet. Most likely building will be used for Additional Education & Sport programs. Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Besuglov.S! Maybe brief mention in the article? If the kindergarten and preschool are gone, please also remove from the intro. In this case can be mentioned in the history (when added, when closed). gidonb (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a small faculty list would be appropriate in history and not sure about K-12 term as it sort of contradicts with 11 year duration. Preschool programs were not closed and still running in the first building. Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 12:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K-12 may be US-centric. Better use primary and secondary if used in Russia. Whatever is used in Russia and are internationally recognized terms. There is no need to argue every word. Be bold and continue taking this in a good direction. Just remember that less is often better. The best editorial question is: Is something of importance missing? The worst: Is there something else that I know about this subject? gidonb (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will try my best. Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 12:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made these changes. Happy editing! gidonb (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Hager

Hi, I don't know if you've watch-listed Edgar Hager, you did quite a bit of work on it last year. I opened a question on the Talk page to no response. Before I make the edit, I wanted to run it past you since you were the primary editor for those changes. What caught my attention was that the lead said "Colonel", but there is no mention of military service in the article.

Other than the newspaper blurb, there is no evidence that Hager was entitled to or used any military rank. The thorough biography, published in 1912 (4 years after the newspaper blurb), makes no mention of any military service. His fraternity directory, published a year after the newspaper, doesn't mention any rank or service (and it does include military ranks for others, indicating that they include rank when there is one). None of the other refs mention it.

I suspect either a misprint or misunderstanding by the Cincinatti Enquirer journalist, or that "Col" was an honorific of the time rather than an earned military title. I'd like to remove the word "Colonel". Do you have any objections? Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Your work on Daniella van Graas was exceptional. Over and above the norm. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Films considered the best

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of films considered the best, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Logan, even if this is your opinion, why engage an edit warring on the article page while there is an on ongoing discussion on the talk page? gidonb (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war is started not be the person who reverts, but by the person who reverts a revert. Your actions are currently in violation of WP:NOCONSENSUS, and per WP:BRD you should obtain a consensus on the talk page for adding the new material. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I started the discussion on the talk page but you nevertheless removed on the article page. Sorry but I do not want to engage in your edit wars. gidonb (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the article back to the stable version is consistent with WP:STATUSQUO. I have added comments to the discussion so let's wait and see what other editors think. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi mr Gidonb, could you help me edits Trần dynasty military tactics and organization and delete the sign. Đông Minh (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Daniella van Graas

On 18 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daniella van Graas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that spokesmodel Daniella van Graas thinks she has been largely typecast as a model, but wishes to gain 20 kilograms (44 lb) and play a Monster? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniella van Graas. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Daniella van Graas), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality categories

Please do NOT remove player articles from nationality categories under any circumstances! I have reverted your changes at Leon de Kogel. Giant Snowman 06:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowman, these are supercats that create massive categories. In addition, your revert removed the player from a correct category. Don't worry, I already fixed this for you. Exploring some more I see that several other countries have this custom to put all players in the parent cat, so the correct way to address this would be at some central page. gidonb (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cycling in North Brabant

Seems a bit too minor to me; only has one page. I won't take this to CfD yet but I'm considering it. Remagoxer (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Remagoxer, while you wrote this, I already added the second subcat. gidonb (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And so you have. It looks okay to me now. Remagoxer (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are such messages the best use of your time? Maybe think about the population potential of each category? gidonb (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woah there, chill! I felt the subject of the category was a bit niche. That's why I posted here. We don't work on how a disruptive editor might act, we look at how they are acting. I posted this before you added more articles. (By the way, why did you edit your signature to say 12:47 when you posted at 46? Just wondering, like you were.) Remagoxer (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. This silly new beta function plays with our edits. If you do not understand potentials, just leave everyone to do their work. gidonb (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't really work on potentials. If we did, XfD wouldn't really exist. I thought the category was too niche but you since added enough stuff to make it, in my eyes, fine. I'm sorry that I couldn't predict the future but maybe be a tad less rude? Remagoxer (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to be rude, do appreciate that you are excited, but do not see the added value of such discussions. If you must CfD something, just do it. My categories are rock solid and if they aren't, they shouldn't be there. Time at WP is better spent doing. As an illustration, I did nominate a subcat of this category. Only an automatic message went to the (banned) creator. gidonb (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Dr. Pol

Congratulations.
Be careful what you wish for. The doctor's article was viewed by no one. Merging will remedy that.
Your actions also got the articles updated and expanded. Best wishes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm no deletionist. Only favor a sensible organization of WP. As a result, articles do get better read and maintained. All the best! gidonb (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much bigger article than it once was. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it is. gidonb (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Weber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gerard Weber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP bug at Itzhak Vissoker

Not sure what formatting you were attempting here with ref tags but I have reverted. Giant Snowman 18:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giant, thank you! I suddenly need to go back to the temp save of every edit in order for the refs to go back to normal. Very strange. I did miss this one so good that you saw the problem. Is this some kind of bug of Wikipedia that you are aware of? I would like to receive some input on the root cause. It makes it nearly impossible to improve WP. Thanks again, gidonb (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen it before - maybe ask at WP:VPT for the boffins to take a look? Giant Snowman 18:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giant, thank you for the recommendation. I have raised the problem at that page! This plus the radio boxes makes editing a huge waste of time. gidonb (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, feel free to add your articles to this! † Encyclopædius 21:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days to Category:Jewish holy days

See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 8#Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days proposal to merge Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days to Category:Jewish holy days. IZAK (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion

I'm just curious for clarification about the response to a "propose deleting" entry, to which the response (five days ago) seems to be "Speedy per consensus between nominator and creator." It sounds to me as if there's agreement to procede with deleting the category, would that be correct or might there be some additional procedure/protocol or other requirement? Thanks for any clarification. Daeron (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 553: / Line 553: @@
 *See: [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 8#Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days]] proposal to merge [[:Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days]] to [[:Category:Jewish holy days]]. [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk:IZAK|talk]]) 18:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
+== Categories for discussion ==
+I'm just curious for clarification about the response to a "propose deleting" entry, to which the response (five days ago) seems to be "Speedy per consensus between nominator and creator." It sounds to me as if there's agreement to procede with deleting the category, would that be correct or might there be some additional procedure/protocol or other requirement? Thanks for any clarification. [[User:Daeron|Daeron]] ([[User talk:Daeron|talk]]) 23:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)