User talk:Bmwz3hm

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Willem Buiter has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Willem Buiter was changed by Bmwz3hm (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.892192 on 2014-03-26T11:43:28+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Heleen Mees ‎

Hi. I get the impression that you may have a conflict of interest in regard to the article on Heleen Mees. Normally that would be a problem, but given the current proceedings, it currently raises greater concerns. Given that, it would be best if you were not to edit the article of that concerning Willem Buiter directly - you are very welcome to make suggestions on the discussion pages, but direct editing creates a particular problem where conflicts of interest are concerned. In regard to content, I think it best if we just leave it with the basic claims of the court case and that it is now set for dismissal - if we start venturing into explaining the details of the case, the back and forth claims are likely to make it the focus of the article, which would then lessen the significance of Heleen Mees' other accomplishments. - Bilby (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, that Buiter was embroiled in a matter because he was accused of contacting Heleen Mees was not my invention. Look it up in history. I still think that only mentioning the accusations on Willem Buiter's page without mentioning that all charges are set for dismissal is not very balanced. The dismissal of the charges is a fact, not an opinion or an allegation. Best.

By the way, Buiter himself has admitted that he sent Mees the LinkedIn request. So I think it is relevant information.

I agree that mentioning that the case is set for dismissal makes sense. I strongly disagree with mentioning further allegations. The problem is that, to be fair, we should therefore also include the conditions for the dismissal to be met, and any other allegations that may have been raised against Mees and Buiter. But once we move down that path, the section will rapidly grow. As a compromise, its seems reasonable to just state that the case is set to be dismissed, not include any of the conditions, and leave out further allegations. Would that work? - Bilby (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That seems a fine solution for Willem Buiter's page. Buiter's allegations are now topic of a civil case, but no need to mention that until anything has been decided.

I think that should hold for both articles. I don't feel that it is in the interests of either party to extend the coverage to include additional allegations. A simple statement that a court case was started and is set for dismissal seems sufficient. - Bilby (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Otherwise both articles should refer to the civil case, to make Mees position clear that she was subjected to a false arrest based on Buiter's false allegations.

In that case I'll raise the issue on the biographies of living people noticeboard. I think we need some alternative views here. - Bilby (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I also understand your position.

On another note, I don't understand the warning message at the start of the article about using bare URLs for citations. Isn't that issue solved? Do you know what to do? °RUmarAbbasi (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Your recent editing history at Heleen Mees shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You have reverted 3 times, you are one more revert away from a violation. -- Atama頭 15:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Much appreciated. Bmwz3hm (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This is another, and final warning... Do not edit-war on Heleen Mees (or anywhere else). You held off on edit-warring for a couple of days to avoid violating 3RR, but even so to engage in an edit war at all (reverting people rather than discussing your disagreement with editors) is prohibited. There is a discussion begun at the article talk page, seen here, in response to the edit war. You've been asked multiple times (by myself and your opponent in the edit war) to take the dispute there, but have yet to do so. Revert again before engaging in the discussion (and resolving it there) and I will block you. -- Atama頭 19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand this. The opponent changes the entire text, and then tells me to have a discussion on the talk page? And I do the edit warring? Bmwz3hm (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The other editor made several edits, explaining each one with an edit summary, which is what is expected. Your reversions have either been absent of summaries or simply argumentative. That's edit warring so you need to discuss. For the record, I've reviewed the edits made by that editor and they seem reasonable. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm just undid all of other users' edits, again with no edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=605257860&oldid=605244004 --TheCockroach (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep ganging up on Mees. The fact that the photo, which Epa released under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license, has been removed time and again proves that Wikipedia just serves as a platform for men to take women down. Bmwz3hm (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

To be blunt, that's absolute rubbish. The image was deleted for quite appropriate reasons, firstly because it was a copyright violation and then a second and third time because the licensing terms were unnaceptable, as explained in the deletion discussion.[1][2] --AussieLegend (✉) 09:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Willem Buiter

Hi. I think we need to work out a way forward given that you appear to have a conflict of interest in regard to Heleen Mees and, by extension, Willem Buiter. My major concern there is Buiter. You haven't edited the article lately, so this may not be an issue, but in future you'll need to avoid editing the article directly. I've no problems with you raising concerns on the talk page, but someone else will need to make direct edits. In regard to the Heleen Mees article, I get the impression that you would be unwilling to stand back completely, and I understand your reluctance to do so. SO I won't say that you can't edit it, but I recommend that you try to limit yourself to minor edits, and instead make recommendations on the talk page. We may need to revisit this in the future, but I'm hoping it will be less of an issue once the case is settled. - Bilby (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I see. You did not get support for your position on the biographies board and now I'm the problem. Doesn't make sense to me.Bmwz3hm (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't get a response, rather than didn't get support. I'm not asking you to refrain from editing completely. But I don't think it is in anyone's interests right now if you directly edit Willem Buiter, given the current situation. The conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages people who have a conflict of interest from directly editing the articles where a COI exists, and my recommendations above are very much in keeping with the guideline. - Bilby (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Bmwz3hm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24 hours). Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 09:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• You were warned only 11 hours prior to this revert that if you reverted the article again, without discussion, that you would be blocked. Your latest reversion is grossly inappropriate. Not only was it made without any explanation, but it restored an image that has been deleted multiple times for very valid reasons. This is unacceptable conduct. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Heleen Mees. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding that the primary reason for your block is edit warring. However, some other problems have been pointed out that you should heed. Making personal attacks is unacceptable; comment on the content, not the person. Above all else, please learn how to engage in discussion on the article talk page once you know something is disputed. Don't continue to edit war during the discussion. Participate, discuss, and respect consensus. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I (Bmwz3hm (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)) believe that there is a clash of cultures here. In the Netherlands Heleen Mees’ opinions about women in the workplace may have been seen as provocative, but in the United States and most other countries the views of Heleen Mees are simply mainstream. Journalists from The New York Times (Katrin Bennhold) and The Atlantic (Sharon Lerner) did interview Heleen Mees in the past about her views on women’s issues, but Mees' opinions never made it into any newspaper article because they are considered nothing out of the ordinary in the United States. If you look at Heleen Mees’ bibliography, you can see that she only wrote 2 English pieces about women’s issues, from a list of more than 50 publications (see below). The first article deals with women on corporate boards, the second with outlawing prostitution. Both articles fit well in a European trend at the time and can hardly be considered provocative, now or then. To summarize Heleen Mees work based on these 2 pieces, which are already more than 6 years old, seems wholly unbalanced to me. The original text of the Heleen Mees article devotes a paragraph to Mees’ successful lobby for more women on corporate boards in the Netherlands in 2006 - 2008, which is just about right in light of the above.

Does the content of the entire Heleen Mees article really depend on what one Dutchman (Theobald Tiger) knows Heleen Mees most for? Bmwz3hm (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

BIBLIOGRAPHY HELEEN MEES:

Forthcoming Bekaert, Geert and Heleen Mees. 2014. Housing Bubbles and the Dutch Disease. (Working Paper).

Mees, Heleen. 2013. NY Service Economy - A Template for a Future Suburbia. Here, There, Everywhere, DroogLab Amsterdam.

Mees, Heleen. 2014. China, No House of Cards. Capital, April 2014.

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2014. Are Chinese Individuals Prone to Money Illusion? (Accepted for publication by Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics).

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Why China's Growth Model Makes Sense. Project Syndicate, May 16, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Financial Crisis or Innovation Crisis? Both!. Project Syndicate, May, 2, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. The Big Wage Squeeze. Project Syndicate, April 23, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Transatlantic Strife. Project Syndicate, April 9, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Interest Rates Should Take Blame for Recession. Financial Times Economists's Forum, March 1, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Go Fitch, Go. Financial Times Economists' Forum.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Synthesising Views on West's Poor Growth. Financial Times Economists' Forum, 12-12-2012.

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2012. Approximating the DGP of China's Quarterly GDP. Applied Economics Volume 45, Issue 24, 2013.

Mees, Heleen and Raman Ahmed. 2012. Why Do Chinese Households Save So Much? VoxEU, August 28, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. PhD-propositions in English and Mandarin Chinese. VoxEU, August 28, 2012.

Mees, Heleen and Raman Ahmed. 2012. Why Do Chinese Households Save So Much? Journal paper on China's household savings rate. This version August 2012. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen. 2012. The Fed Should Buy Stocks instead of Bonds. Financial Times Economists' Blog, August 6, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Changing Fortunes - How China's Boom Caused the Financial Crisis. Ph.D. thesis, August 28, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. China's Reliable Rise. Project Syndicate, July 25, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Evaluating the Global Crisis. Public Administration Review, Volume 72, Issue 6, Pages 779 - 949, November/December 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Fed Up. Foreign Policy on June 12, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Only Germany Can Save Europe. Foreign Policy, April 24, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. The Zero Man Foreign Policy, April 3, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. How China's Boom Caused the Financial Crisis. Foreign Policy, January 17, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. U.S. Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble. Journal of Monetary Economics. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2011. Real Money in China, Money Illusion in America. In VoxEU on November 20, 2011.

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2011. Are Chinese Individuals Prone to Money Illusion? Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No. 11-149/4. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen. 2011. The Perils of Loose Living. Foreign Policy, October 11, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. The Global Saving Glut Will Hold Bond Yields Down. In VoxEU on August 8, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. Lost in Transmission. In VoxEU on June 21, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. Beware of Runaway Headline Inflation. In VoxEU on May 3, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. U.S. Monetary Policy and the Saving Glut. In VoxEU on March 24, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. The False Panacea of Labor Market Flexibility. By Project Syndicate, March 22, 2011.

Franses, Philip Hans and Heleen Mees. 2011. Approximating the DGP of China's Quarterly GDP. By Econometric Institute Research Papers in 2011. (Under Review).

Franses, Philip Hans and Heleen Mees. 2011. Does News on Real Chinese GDP Growth Impact Stock Markets? By Econometric Institute Research Papers in 2011. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen. 2010. Germany is not China. By Project Syndicate on August 16, 2010.

Mees, Heleen. 2010. Don't Blame the Euro. By EuroIntelligence on June 10, 2010.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Going Dutch? Not So Fast!. In The New York Times on May 24, 2009.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Going Dutch? Not So Fast! (extended version). In NRC Handelsblad on May 10, 2009.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Between Greed and Desire - The World between Wall Street and Main Street.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Does Legalizing Prostitution Work By Project Syndicate on January 23, 2009.

Mees, Heleen. 2008. Wars against Women. By Project Syndicate on May 26, 2008.

Mees, Heleen. 2008. Why We Must Break the Male Cartel in the Work Place. In the Financial Times on April 23, 2008.

Mees, Heleen. 2007. The Cost of the Gender Gap. By Project Syndicate on August 29, 2007.

Mees, Heleen. 2007. China is Buying Europe. In The International Herald Tribune on July 29, 2007.

Mees, Heleen. 2006. Europe's Leisure Trap. By Project Syndicate on June 23, 2006.

Mees, Heleen and Rick van der Ploeg. 2005. Affirmative Action for Europe. In Le Monde on December 2, 2005.

Theobald Tiger's opinions and/or knowledge are not what matters. What can be verified by reliable sources is what matters. Theobald Tiger is just one editor working on that article out of multiple editors. You'd know that if you participated at Talk:Heleen Mees as you've been repeatedly asked to. I strongly suggest you do. -- Atama頭 18:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heleen_Mees&diff=605521525&oldid=605521425

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Thanks. --TheCockroach (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Bmwz3hm (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of Hengelo, Overijssel

Why do you continually delete Mees' birth place (Hengelo, Overijssel)? --TheCockroach (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Esthetics. It makes the page illegible for English readers. Bmwz3hm (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not true. Iam an English reader and it's perfectly legible. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Bmwz3hm (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Resumption of edit-warring

You've only just been released from a block for edit-warring and yet your first edits at Heleen Mees have been to be to edit-war by reverting the article to an almost identical version to that which resulted in your block.[3] You are well aware that edit-warring is unacceptable so please expect a further block, which will probably be longer if you revert again. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not edit warring. The talk page explains the edits. Bmwz3hm (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The edits have no consensus and you were blocked because of them. The current version is an almost identical version of those edits. You reverted without first discussing (discussing requires the participation of other editors) despite warnings NOT to do that. I have notified the adinistrator ho blocked you. In order to minimise the length of the almost certain block that you will be subjected to, I strongly encourage you to revert you most recent edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edits also have no consensus. Bmwz3hm (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

To give a fair and balanced account of Heleen Mees achievements, you have to look at sources/information before July 1, 2013. The charges against Mees are after all set for dismissal. Sensational reports in the Dutch tabloids after that date are not a good source. Bmwz3hm (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm, every time you revert someone it's an edit war. If you revert and you haven't reached an agreement on the talk page, you're edit-warring. See WP:EW for a full explanation of what's involved. Essentially, here is what you should be doing right now... Explain what you want to change on the talk page of the article. If someone objects, ask them why, and if you don't understand fully what their objection is, ask them to clarify any particular points you don't understand. Offer your counter-argument to support your point of view. You can try a compromise, meet them halfway, suggest a partial change of what you want but not all of it. But this should be a discussion as long as there is a disagreement. I'm very glad you're talking on the article talk page, that is a huge step forward for the article, but you can't just explain what you want and then do it. There has to be an agreement first. I don't think you understand this, which is why I'm not blocking you again for this edit-war, but I'm warning you that if you edit the article any further without any editor on the talk page agreeing with you, you will be blocked (and not by me, by someone else). At this point a lot of administrators would block because you're reoffending after your most recent block, but I'm giving you a chance so that you can learn this process. -- Atama頭 04:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Truly, I don't do the edit warring here. TT replaced the complete content of the article without there being any consensus. And AussieLegend keeps reverting to the TT text, without addressing any of the arguments that show that it is an imbalanced text. Bmwz3hm (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You've been blocked for edit-warring and Atama has explained edit-warring to you in very simple terms. It is clear to everyone except you that you are edit-warring. This includes the edits that you have made today. Because you have refused to acknowledged this I have notified the blocking admin and expanded the report at WP:AN3. As for your claim that "AussieLegend keeps reverting to the TT text, without addressing any of the arguments that show that it is an imbalanced text", that's not correct. I have explained that, as an uninvolved editor, I reviewed both your edits and those of Theobald Tiger and edited the article appropriately. While you may not support it, Theobald Tiger's edits seem far more balanced and less self-serving than yours, which are clearly opposed by multiple editors. You've made some bold edits, they were reverted and should now be discussed. You haven't explained why you first made these significant changes without discussion or explanation, only two edits later reverting the article to the version that got you blocked, which was a significant change from the edits you first made today.[4] We have been very patient with you but you seem intent only on forcing your version of the article. You need to discuss before editing, as others have suggested. Otherwise your blocks are going to get longer and longer. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Theobald Tiger made the most bold edit without prior approval. Give the sources you cite, I don't have the impression that are you very knowledgeable on the topic of Heleen Mees. You refuse to address any of the arguments that I brought forward on the talk page in support of the original text; the only thing you do is repeating edit-war, edit-war. Bmwz3hm (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bold edits are fine. Nobody needs prior approval to edit an article. Your first edits were bold edits that significantly changed the article and those edits were made without any explanation as to why you were making them.[5] There was absolutely no reason why Theobald Tiger could not edit the article as you did and he at least included explanations in his edit summaries but you haven't allowed that. You persistently revert any changes by other editors to something similar to your 16 April version. This is asserting ownership of an article which is prevented by policy. You need to understand that it doesn't matter whether or not you think you are right, edit-warring and asserting ownership of an article is not permitted under ANY circumstances. Quite apart from this, editors have expressed concern that you are Heleen Mees and I note you have not addressed these concerns. If you are Heleen Mees you should not be editing the article. These are the primary concerns at the moment. I haven't addressed your arguments on the talk page because you've only moved to the talk page today. I'm more concerned about the fact that you've persisted in edit-warring after releas from your block. Any message that you may have regarding content has been overshadowed by that. Your refusal to revert indicates to me that you are not really willing to collaborate, which is what you are expected to do. This is supported by the fact that soon after TheCockroach opposed your edits,[6] you reverted the article, not back to this revision but effectively back to your 16 April version. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Heleen Mees. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you have resumed the same behavior that just got you blocked, I have extended it to 48 hours. Again, you should review WP:BRD. Make a change once; if it is clear your edit is disputed, get consensus on the talk page before making the edit again. That doesn't mean keep making the edit just because you posted about it on the talk page. If you resume this behavior once unblocked, I shall have to consider an indefinite block until you indicate some basic understanding of consensus and edit warring. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Give that advise to Theobald Tiger and yourself. You are the ones who started the edit-warring. Bmwz3hm (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Spike Wilbury has never edited Heleen Mees. According to the article's edit history, either this edit or this one were the start of the edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)