User talk:DirkvdM/archive 2

Baracoa cabin

Hi Dirk, I've added your beautiful photo of a Baracoa cabin to the History of Cuba page, (I'm beginning to lock horns with that most horrible of pages and am trying to sort it out). I've assumed that it is a Taino construction (or at least based on a Taino cabin). Am I correct here?--Zleitzen 05:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a reassonable guess, but I don't know really. A Google image search for taino hut gives different results. They all have palmleaf roofs, but two are square and one is round, whilst one has the roof down to the floor. There must have been some variation. You could say it has a palmleaf roof, as the Taino huts did. I took the photo on a hillridge just south of Baracoa, where there was a little settlement. Most other houses weren't like this one (making more use of modern construction materials). Btw, there is now a version of that picture on Wikimedia Commons, which makes more sense as a source because it is 'universally sourceable' (the one on the English Wikipedia may even go).

And while you're doing the Cuban History page, are you going to move some info from the History section of the Cuba article there? That's a bit too long. Some bits, like after the revolution, are even longer there, which doensn't make sense. Success. DirkvdM 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dirk, I've replaced the picture with the commons version and adjusted the caption slightly to refer to the palmleaf roof - in case Taino scholars (or El Jigue) get mad with me. I'll see how my work on the History of Cuba page goes before I trim anything from the main page. I quite like the version on the Cuba page, it's fairly stable and hasn't been challenged for a long time - but we'll see. I love your photography by the way.--Zleitzen 11:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Africa crowd.jpg

There are several things wrong with this picture:

Obsolete tag
Lack of source (one of my friends took it is not really a verifyiable source)
Not used in articles

Renata 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was orphaned. I uploaded it for the Overpopulation article, but it was removed from there a few months ago. As for the source, would including the friend's name do? If so, which tag should I use? DirkvdM 06:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of those daft barnstars

I checked some of your other photos Dirk and you're a talented photographer.

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For some beautiful photography of Cuba and Costa Rica Zleitzen 08:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My second barnstar. And again for something I kind of feel I might deserve one for (there is method to this daftness :) ). Thanks! DirkvdM 08:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marse bars

2 days later & I'm still laughing - thanks for that! Mattopaedia 08:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for thanking me here in a signed way, thus luring me to your page and making me aware of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD. It's also nice to know that some people actually manage to understand me sometimes. DirkvdM 19:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this?

Since original work is not allowed, and wikipedia is likely not to be used to publish one's essay's, what about use of wikipedia here: User:Cott12/Notebook? --JohJak2 11:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam on Wikipedia? Let's see how I should report this. Thanks for pointing out {{TOCright}} to me, though. I'll likely use that somewhere. DirkvdM 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You gave the impression that you agreed that this is not an appropriate use of a personal page. Was my impression correct? I also noticed that there is now a Dutch translation: User:Cott12/Sandbox atęcja, placed on the English wiki since it was voted unacceptable on the Dutch wiki. The reason I ask you is that I find the procedures difficult to understand. --JohJak2 11:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam is trying to sell something to someone who has not shown any iterrest in it whatsoever. Your message here is rather like spam in that sense (the subject even looks rather despicable to me, but I haven't really bothered to read it). I have not acted on it yet, but another post here will change that. DirkvdM 14:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your reply. Why do you call my message spam? Are you under the impression that I want to "sell" you this idea? I assure you that you are wrong there. I did not realise that when I bring something to your attention that I am spamming. To be clear, it was you, not I who called it spam. And the reason I ask your opinion is because I have seen your name frequently on an advisory Reference Desk. I would like this page removed! And now even two pages. Because I call it inappropriate use of personal space. Not only that, it is even "original work", which, AFAIK is not allowed. I am, however, overwhelmed by the procedures about getting articles removed, especially ones that are so craftily hidden in the wikipedia sphere, but may be found by Google. And you do seem to know your way around. If you are unwilling to look into this, please advise me where I can place this for removal. If you rather want me to ask someone else, then I will do so. Furthermore, I also do not understand your last remark: "...another post here will change that." What kind of post, and what will it change? --JohJak2 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I totally misunderstood your intentions. I thought you wanted to spread some idea by linking to it at random user pages (which would constitute a form of spam), but now I understand that you want it removed. Sorry about the misunderstanding and my reaction.

I'm not sure if putting something like that on a user subpage breaks any rules. And if so, I wouldn't have the ability to remove it. You'd need an admistrator for that. I am fairly active at the ref desk, but that doesn't mean I know the ins and outs of Wikipedia proper (the encyclopedia bit). Better first ask at the help desk about the rules on this. DirkvdM 18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

photo DirkvdM hairy fly.jpg

Why don't you try to pass it as Featured picture.It's really an ungly little devel.--Pixel ;-) 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already nominated three photos and am learning from that. I take them one at a time. This one will get it's turn. You could also nominate it, by the way, if you so desire. DirkvdM 18:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Fidel-recent-bw.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fidel-recent-bw.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it gets deleted, for reference here's the source of the photo: http://www.pcc.cu/pccweb/glosario/personalidades/fidel_castro.php (photo location http://www.pcc.cu/pccweb/glosario/personalidades/images/fidel.jpg).

Upon reading above message I added the following to the talk page:

I have noticed with photographs on photostock sites that photographs of people taken in Cuba lack the notice of consent of the people in the photograph. I take this as an indication of usual copyright not being applicable in Cuba, which would indeed be in keeping with the philosophy of a socialist country. However, I do not know Cuban law. Another consideration is that it's a government photograph and those tend to be in the public domain, I believe. DirkvdM 05:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Misandry

I hope my comment didn't come across as a male-bashing. I suppose I meant that, in my experience, many women do seem to be quite knowledgable regarding men and their psychology, and have on many occasions pointed out aspects of male behavior, that I hadn't been aware of. You are, of course, right that the reverse statement would have been offensive; I guess I also tend to show less scruples about making 'sexist', 'racist' etc comments, when the target of ridicule is my own 'group'. But I didn't mean to lump all men together, I know there are plenty of exceptions out there. I guess the only excuse I have for my careless phrasing is the fact that I am male... oops this is getting circular. Cheers! :) ---Sluzzelin 10:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I just like to give a fresh perspective to set people's minds working, which sometimes comes across as irritation or such, but it's all intended in good taste and all that. No offence was taken or intended. DirkvdM 11:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RD modification

If you haven't been reading the RD talk page, I would appreciate some input on a proposed re-arrangement of the reference desks. I have set up a demo here, and I am coming close to finishing the base code for the entire RD suite. It should be noted that there is no plan to use these pages without the aid of an archiving bot, and by that I mean to imply that they are being to be used with a bit that will be made for them. Once a few more things have been set in stone, I will re-issue the bot request. Thanks. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 12:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Other places to ask" is supposed to be stuck at the bottom of "Topics", they're part of the same table, I just made the "Other places to ask" label eye catching by giving it the same design as the table captions. If it gets all stretchy for very wide screens, I guess I should set a maximum width on the tables, so that it only expands to a certain width. Ideally, the white space on the bottom left will be filled with something. I just haven't figured out what yet. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 11:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you tell me this here, but I've replied at User talk:Freshgavin/Sandbox/Reference desk. Btw, I now see that you already gave me the link I asked for at the ref desk here a while ago. DirkvdM 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk van der Made, Dirkvdm, DirkvdM

Hi, I tagged the three redirects you made per CSD R2. -- Gogo Dodo 08:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to your user page

Please do not create redirects to your user page in the main namespace. They fall under speedy criterion R2 and are deleted on sight. Thank you, and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 08:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: ==Is Flemish Mutually Intelligible With Dutch?== by DirkvdM 06:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language (section)

Wow, thank you. What do you mean subtleties? Danke.100110100 02:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you listen to someone, you make guesses at what they mean (meaning is rarely as clear as people seem to think it is) and if you have a good mutual understanding of the words used (ie you're both native pseakers) you may get very close. The less common gound you have, the harder it will be to get the exact meaning. When listening to Frisian or South African, I make loads of educated guesses and will usually get it about right, but I have to keep up with the speed at which they are speaking, so some things will just 'slip'. Those are the subtleties I mean. DirkvdM 03:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American English

I responded to your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 October 10#lyrics, in case you don't frequently check the entirely of the RD archives for updates (ha). --Tardis 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted comments

Not unless you posed as an anon and started calling everying a "fucking pope loving nazi". freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 08:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, can't remember having ever done that. :) DirkvdM 08:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos Santa Fé

Those are some impressive photos in Santa Fé, Veraguas, but as you note, it urgently needs some encyclopedic content. Since they appear to be on Commons already, perhaps the better use for them would be to choose one or two that are most representative of the area and for the rest put a link to Commons and create a gallery there. Incidentally, I looked, and the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't have this article yet, either, or I'd consider translating some content. Perhaps a stub notice is in order. —Dvortygirl 23:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, forgot about that. My idea was to first get the photos uploaded and in place and then later write the articles. But, as things tend to go, I got involved in other stuff and forgot about that last bit. I don't see why some photos should go, though. I could reduce the size of most because they are rather big. I'll work on that later today. Thanks for reminding me. DirkvdM 04:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trip to Africa

Hello! I'm a bit curious about the flag at the end of your list of places you visited in Africa. Was that another place you visited afterwards? --HappyCamper 09:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was the return trip (aeroflot had the cheapest deal). Like I say above the list, I didn't even leave the airport. So technically speaking I wasn't even in the USSR (an airport is international ground), but I thought it looked cool to add it to the list. :) DirkvdM 09:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the automobile

Please refer to Talk:History of the automobile for a discussion about the yank tanks revert. --SFoskett 14:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

A bit of an odd barnstar, but you helped me with a question on the HD four days before my subspecialty exams in gastroenterology. Wanted to say thanks so much! -- Samir धर्म 06:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you tricked me into helping you out with homework? :) Ok, if you won't point out to me that an exam isn't homework, then I won't point out to you that it was on the Reference Desk, not on the Help Desk. :) DirkvdM 03:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About :DirkvdM natural spiral.jpg

Hi,

I just want to know if it's possible to send me by email in hight resolution one of your picture, the Image:DirkvdM natural spiral.jpg.

I've found it absolutly beautiful, and would like expose it in my room.

(Sorry for my English, I'm French)

Best Regards.

mail : dieunexistepas@hotmail.com

Antoine Dubois.

Thanks for the compliment, but I am trying to make money with the high resolution versions of my photographs, so it wouldn't make sense to start giving them away. Sorry. DirkvdM 03:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERB. ABGEBAUT

I used a belhuis to make a call to England and got a busy signal (fast beep beep beep) and 'VERB. ABGEBAUT' came on the phone screen. The clerk couldn't tell me what it meant. Do you know? It returns four google results but they're foreign. --Username132 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Abbauen' is German for 'breaking off' (at least that is one of the meanings), and 'verb' probably means 'verbindung', so the message would mean 'connection broken'. Or it might mean the number you are calling doesn't exist anymore. Not sure. One of those Google hits suggests the telephone company is to blame, but they're just guessing. Another is about internet protocols, saying that after a TCP data exchange, the 'connection is broken'. Not sure what that would mean specifically, though. DirkvdM 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you! Now I've checked out skype and wont be using one of those places any time soon! --Username132 (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

natural spiral.jpg

Ho, I'm sorry, I haven't see that.

So, how much for this picture ? (natural spiral) (And just one precision, what is the original resolution ?)

Antoine Dubois.

The original pixel size is 2272x1704 (taken with an Ixus400, a 4mp camera). To be honest, I don't yet know what prices I should ask for my photos because this would be my first sale. My idea was to sell the rights to the photos, so in the order of hundreds of euro's, and that would of course be too much for you. But then, maybe I could send you a print. A 30x45 print (larger would not be advisable at this pixel size) would cost just a few euro on photo paper and also less than 10 euro for postage to France. Since this is my first sale and making money is less important to me now than the experience of actually selling a photograph, let's say 25 euro for the whole deal (print, postage plus my fee). Would that be ok with you? DirkvdM 12:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer do it by myself, because a can use Freely a HP Z3100, with that i'm sure to obtaint the best quality, and above all, a special resolution of impression (53.34*40), i think the original resolution would be sufficient. And of course for the price, no shipping cost, no photo paper.

So if your interested, tell me your price.

disambiguation page

You asked if a disambiguation page may link to another disambiguation page. I see no problem with that. However, - and maybe that's just me - I always find it misleading when a disambig page says: "History may also refer to: Natural History". The word "history" never refers to natural history, unless you stretch the meaning of "refers" beyond the meaning of a reference. I would write something like "it also occurs in the following terms:", but this is unfortunately not WP standard. — Sebastian (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles

Hee, als je een artikel verplaatst zoals One NL is het beter om het te doen met "move" in plaats van te copy/pasten, zodat de edit-geschiedenis niet verdwijnt. Groeten! jaco♫plane 10:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, dat wist ik, maar ik was iet al te wakker toen ik het deed. Foutje, sorry. Ik zie dat je het al verholpen hebt. Bedankt dat je mijn rotzooi achter me opgeruimd hebt. DirkvdM 18:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben-Gurione on reference desk

WARNING. 'Ben-Gurione' or '24.177.35.252' sometimes posts a bunch of random question. Not quite trolling, but a nuisance nevertheless. Please ignore him. DirkvdM 09:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what about posting a lot of questions means we should ignore this user. He/She could just be very curious, and if so we should answer all the questions. I am concerned that putting up WARNINGs after every comment would create an atmosphere discouraging both Ben-Gurione and other anonymous users from posting questions—would you consider removing your remarks to the ref desk talk page? -- SCZenz 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been at the ref desk before, after a while getting on people's nerves because he kept on asking random questions, like this time about the youngest member of the US congress and the average annual sex partners. But I must admit that this time they are not all simple factual questions, so I suppose I overreacted based on previous experience. I will remove the warnings. DirkvdM 06:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Man and monkey. Shantavira apparently remembers him and has copied my comment. DirkvdM 09:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit summaries

do you mind using edit summaries? Thank you, --MarSch 16:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, I just tend to forget about them. DirkvdM 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk removal

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I thought an off-topic side discussion you started was starting to get out of hand, so I removed it. If you have any concerns, I am more than happy to discuss them. -- SCZenz 07:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a concern is that one should never remove anyone's contribution to the ref desk. Off-topicity is both a problem and an incentive. It may disturb some but it is also part of the fun for many editors. If no fun were allowed many would eventually leave, which would be a loss. Most useful editors like these kinds of jokes and that is part of the reason they visit the ref desk in the first place. DirkvdM 07:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's a concern. But when things go very far off-topic, particularly in a way that may offend our audience to no purpose, then it becomes time to bring things back on track. If the reference desk were a page from which "one should never remove anyone's contribution," then it would be the only such page on Wikipedia; however, this is not the case. -- SCZenz 07:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't re-add off-topic discussion

Please to not re-add discussion that does not serve the purpose of the reference desk. I've talked this issue to death already, and I have succinctly described what I am doing and why on this page: User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals. Please read it, and discuss it with me all you want; or you can report me for admin abuse at the appropriate place... but please don't re-add the discussion. -- SCZenz 07:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can refer to an actual wikipedia policy I may give. If not, the common sense rule applies that it is rude to remove people's additions to the ref desk. DirkvdM 07:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to talk page policy, and general Wikipedia policy, as highly relevant... in the essay I've already linked. Please take the time to read it in discuss; in my role as an administrator, I must insist that you do not re-add off-topic posts. I do not see that you're giving me an alternative, if you won't discuss the issue.

If it helps, I apologize for springing this on you in this manner, rather than discussing the edits in question before removing them; perhaps you've been unaware of the ongoing discussions on this issue on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. -- SCZenz 07:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After edit conflict:

If you want mediation, you ask for it. There is a waiting list for mediation, so asking there will come down to you getting your way by default because ref desk threads are short-lasting. If this is your crusade, you should put effort into getting this to become official policy. If you manage to do that and there are clear rules (as opposed to your whim) then you will have convinced me. (And the ref desk will become a boring and eventually deserted place.) DirkvdM 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Wikipedia:Use common sense. We don't need reference desk-specific rules to have the same ideas apply there that do on our talk pages—and our talk pages are required to stay on-topic. Let me allow you to read my explanation page, though, rather than repeating myself. -- SCZenz 07:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, not willing to discuss? That's what we are doing here, isn't it? I'll have a look at that discussion now. DirkvdM 07:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meat, discuss without edit warring at the reference desk. -- SCZenz 07:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that you started this 'war'. The burden of proof lies with you. DirkvdM 07:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After another edit conlict:

I read it. It's an ongoing discussion, nowhere near policy. Once that is estabished, you can point me to it and I will then follow that. Or contest it. But I will follow it until I have successfully contested it. Unlike what you are now doing. It is downright rude to censor people. Who is to decide what is to stay and what is to go? DirkvdM 07:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very lengthy discussion I had with StuRat on the subject is now in the archives somewhere. But the distilled version of what I concluded from that talk is at User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals, which says basically everything I can say right now. -- SCZenz 07:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That 'stay on topic' policy is about staying the topic of the atrticle on a talk page, not about the ref desk. About your pov on your sub-page, well, it's just that. You're entitled to it, but it gives you no reason to censor people. Also, you have the decency to tell me about the removal, which I appreciate, but removing posts is still a method that is likely to piss people off. You might have more impact if you pointed out your opinions to people and thus managed to convince them. Otherwise you might still get revert wars, which will consume much more of your time. I know, I've been there. DirkvdM 07:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say that neither article page nor talk page rules apply on the reference desk, so you can do whatever you want, is clear wikilawyering. I have explained myself in great detail. Think for a second... how does it improve Wikipedia to revert war over your off-topic penis joke? If there's a revert war here it's of your making; I just tried to remove an off-topic post from project space. -- SCZenz 08:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the one who starts a revert war? Isn't that the first one to do a revert? And keep in mind this is not an article, it's a reference desk, where editing other people's comments is just not done. Also, the rule says something about how one should talk on a talk page. It says nothing about being allowed to remove people's comments. And I didn't make a penis joke. I merely pointed out that I thought the question was about pulling back the foreskin. This made me laugh, so I thought I'd let others in on it. If you had your way the ref desk would be a dull place indeed. And StuRat, one of the most active and useful editors there, would certainly leave. Along with many others. But all that's irrelevant here. You make this wikipolicy and then come back to me. In the meantime, don't censor others. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship either. DirkvdM 08:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"it's a reference desk, where editing other people's comments is just not done" That's the problem; it hasn't been done. However, it is being done now, because the reference desk has gotten out of hand. Many users have commented on this problem, and I have discussed the issue at great length with several users in order to find a resolution... But complaints that I'm spoiling your fun, cries of censorship, and threats to leave or edit war no longer impress me. I've taken the time to address them all, as you've seen. You may not agree that my arguments are convincing. But I have taken this action in my capacity as an administrator on English Wikipedia. Your recourse now, if you like, is to complain about my heavy-handedness. However, you may not re-add your off-topic comments. I'm happy to discuss these issues, but there's nothing more I can say; for what it's worth, I am personally sorry that this direct use of authority was necessary. -- SCZenz 08:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threats? Begging your pardon, but if anyone's threatening it's you. I'm just having a discussion and would appreciate it if you'd stop putting your threats into practise. Being an admin gives you more power, not more rights. And please don't shout. I am sometimes tempted to remove edits by people who shout, but I don't because that would be improper behaviour and one should not fight terrorism with terrorism (speaking of off-topicity). :) DirkvdM 09:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't shouting. I was emphasizing an important point so that you would not ignore it. -- SCZenz 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your most important point is that you're the boss? If that is your attitude then I will certainly not budge. DirkvdM 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, it was not a discussion (just a short remark and a short reaction) and it was not a penis joke. Don't misname things to get your way. And it was indeed off-topic, but the humour lied in the fact that I misunderstood what was the topic. DirkvdM 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question, if you'd like to discuss this issue further

If the talk page rules do not apply to the reference desk, and the article editing rules don't apply either... what does? We know from item 5 in WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought that Wikipedia doesn't do discussion forums. So then, what is the reference desk, and how are the rules at the top of the page to be enforced? -- SCZenz 08:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do discussion forums have to do with this? If certain rules don't apply, then find others that do. You are the one taking action, so you need to point out to me what I'm doing wrong, not the other way around. DirkvdM 10:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, there aren't any that apply, according to a very narrow reading of the rules. I was hoping you would see that a very narrow reading of the rules isn't productive. -- SCZenz 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will see that making up your own rules isn't either. DirkvdM 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning

You have re-added inappropriate material (i.e. irrelevant discussion) to the reference desk here after being told very clearly not to do so. At this point, in my judgement you are disrupting Wikipedia. If you re-add the material again, you will be blocked without further warning. -- SCZenz 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who is disruptive. DirkvdM 19:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way; you are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to complain about my administrative actions. Nevertheless, you have chosen to disrupt Wikipedia again with this edit and I am blocking you for 12 hours to prevent further disruption to the reference desk. -- SCZenz 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to agree not to again restore those comments, I will unblock you immediately. -- SCZenz 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCZenz's behavior

Dirk, I don't know if you read through our lengthy discussion on the Ref Desk talk page, so I will summarize it here. I showed, using all the applicable policies, that SCZenz should not be removing posts in the way threatened. However, SCZenz then said such posts would be removed anyway, even if that action violates policy. If you want to complain about SCZenz abusing Admin authority, I support that. And I absolutely agree with you that the first person to do a revert is the one who is starting a revert war. StuRat 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he isn't abusing admin power because anyone can do what he does. He treatens to block me, but that could cost him his admin status. Whether being admin gives him more authority in this matter, I'm not sure, but that is not how I understand what being an admin is about, so it has nothing to do with that. I suppose the best word is vandalism. To report him we'd have to go through a whole procedure and I first wanted to see if he would let it be. The annoying thing about this is that most of the time I will not notice any removals of my posts unless he tells me, like he did here. But I understand he wants to make it policy to remove posts at his whim and that will certainly not do. Now that he has actually threatened to block me I suppose it's time for action. I'll first put a warning on his user page, to follow procedure. Alas, if he blocks me (I just reverted his deletion again before I read his threat here) I suppose I can't complain about it. I don't really know, and I don't know for how long it will be. Maybe if it's for more than a day you could then take the next step. DirkvdM 19:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a {{test3}} template on his talk page. Funny, now he has a warning on his talk page that he will be blocked if he doesn't stop. :) I don't suppose he has the power to unblock himself. DirkvdM 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what should we complain about and where? That he vandalises other people's edits, that he plans to do so systematically, that he misuses his status as an admin (see shouting above) or that he threatens to misuse his powers as an admin? The latter two are approaches, but I'd say that the second bit is the most important. Other admins can then draw their own conclusions. DirkvdM 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One place to complain would be the Administrators' Noticeboard, where I just created a section asking for review of my actions. WP:AN/I#Reference_desk_problem_and_block. You could also look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. And, since you're currently blocked, you could use {{Unblock}} to request review of that here on your talk page. -- SCZenz 21:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Making jokes about your opinions on what you thought something meant is not appropriate. The reference desk is there to provide responses to questions - not for general banter. You must remember that, yes, policies have a 'written meaning' but they also have a 'spirit' - ie. the point of 3RR is to prevent revert warring. To duck under the limit over and over again would technically not be a breach of the policy, but it would be against the spirit of it. In this case, the reference desk talk pages are not, as SCZenz points out, specifically covered by policies regarding comments there - however, using common sense along with the point that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the fact that the reference desk is not a place for general discussion forum, removing your comment was entirely appropriate in order to keep the page on topic and relevant. I would support SCZenz's actions again if the situation were similar.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whose common sense are we considering today? Yours or mine?--Light current 00:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'common sense' refers to a communal thinking pattern based on what is sensible and reasonable. If you look at the AN/I page mentioned above you will see that his actions have the support of another admin too. I would say that the common sense thing to do on an encyclopedia is to keep it focussed on being an encyclopedia...-Localzuk^(talk) 00:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what functions do the RD pages perform in making an encyclopedia?--Light current 02:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They perform a related function; they assist people in organizing and finding information, particularly from Wikipedia. I admit they are unique in this regard, but certainly they are not discussion pages. -- SCZenz 03:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are really four issues here, two general (1 and 3) and two specific (2 and 4)

Whether people can occasionally have a bit of fun at the ref desk. This sometimes gets a bit out of hand in the sense that many people join in and a nonsense-subthread gets a bit long. But this also shows that there is a 'need' for this. Many people at the ref desk have a certain mindset, with an interrest in trivia and clever quips. If they constantly have to worry about whether a certain off-topic or witty remark wll result in the deletion of their post they may leave the ref desk. A rough guess is that those people deliver about half the useful replies at the ref desk. If they leave, the ref desk will not only become boring but might even wither away because if there are not enough useful answers, people will stop coming back with questions too.
Whether the remarks that LightCurrent and I made was an example of something that needs to be dealt with. It was just two remarks (at that moment, I must admit), of which the second was actually informative, albeit off-topic, naming the thing I was referring to and providing a link to a university hospital site. Btw, there's also the possibility that SCZenz didn't mind the off-topicity or the humour but the fact that it had something to do with the penis. Another example of a bad deletion is this, where someone removed a question because it was medical in nature.
If certain things are not allowed, how to deal with them. Deleting people's posts at talk pages and the ref desk is censorship, and a bit like stealing mail. It's worse than being blocked (which I know from very recent experience :) ) because when you're blocked you know what you're up against. One may respond, but not delete, Id' say. If this is made policy then who should decide what can be deleted, who should be allowed to do it (on Wikipedia usually everyone, but should more than one person agree on the deletion first?), should the person whose post is deleted be notified (and what if it's a newbie who isn't logged in?) and lots more I imagine. A consideration here is that the ref desk is neither an article nor a talk page, so there should be separate rules. But there have to be rules before they can be applied. Which brings me to the next point.
Whether SCZenz may singlehandedly make policy. There is some discussion going on at the ref desk talk page, but as far as I can see there has been no consent yet. eg Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Funny answers. Btw, there, SCZenz remarks we don't need rules, which I contest here.
1. Sub-issue:Whether an admin may use his powers (in casu blocking me) in a discussion he is one of the original parties in. I thought that was not allowed.

Btw, I was not aware that there was a violation of the 3RR. I had completely forgotten about that. DirkvdM 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never claimed to be making policy. I do claim that policy already exists that says that the reference desk isn't a discussion forum, and I also claim that if something is bad for Wikipedia then removing it is good (with the consent of the poster if possible) and restoring it is disruptive. Your problem here is that you believe your "free speech rights" trump what's good for Wikipedia; you've got it backwards, I'm afraid. Your misunderstandings here may explain why you believed other admins would censure me for blocking you, when in fact you can see at WP:AN/I that they have supported me. I can respect that you believe Wikipedia ought to work differently than it does, but all I can say is that you have the right to create an entirely new encyclopedia, using all of Wikipedia's content, which works the way you want. -- SCZenz 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your last remark is complete nonsense. What is the budget of Wikipedia? Do you think I have that kind of money? And would it be a good thing if there were competing Wikipedias?

How does 'Wikipedia is not a discussion forum' apply here? Ironically, it's the other way around. Our remarks were not much of a discussion, but (stepping up to a higher level) the nature of the ref desk is that it is a discussion forum. Saying that the ref desk should only give answers is naive. Simple questions can be answered by linking to the right article, in which case the questioneer didn't follow the rules, so should their question be removed then? Most questions are more complicated and can only be answered by estimates, which are then open to discussion. If you remove all simple questions and discussions the ref desk will cease to exist. To stress the point, should philosophical questions be allowed on the ref desk? Should there be a humanities ref desk at all? By far most posts there are part of a discussion.

Which brings me to the question why you didn't delete all those discussion threads, but did remove a short remark instead. You seem to be giving false reasons for your deletion.

The discussion about which rules should be applied and if there should be any and all that is still very hot and unresolved, with your pov forming a minority. So I repeat the question. Should you be allowed to unilaterally make policy (and decide if there should be any at all)? DirkvdM 09:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the reference desk is to provide information. Opinions and arguments do not serve that purpose. When you make off-topic comments, then you are turning it into a general discussion forum—even if there hasn't been a full discussion about that particular remark yet. Questions about philisophical questions and how they have been addressed are allowed; queries for the opinions of the ref desk editors are not or at least should not be answered (although since we don't want to bite the newbies, we should turn such questions into factual ones whenever possible rather than complaining to them).

Regarding you forming your own encyclopedia, I'm aware you probably can't. However, it is your legal right to do so; your inability to do so does not give you the right to impose your vision of how things should be on this encyclopedia.

It was your suggestion. DirkvdM 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stress again that you, and a few other people who have gotten in the habit of misusing the reference desk, are missing something. Wikipedia is ultimately run by common sense—with goals in mind—not based on narrow interpretations of explicitly spelled-out policies. I'm no longer (and in fact never was) the only administrator supporting this approach to the reference desk. Now that you know that, what next? Do you claim that we're all wrong, and you're right? -- SCZenz 16:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against the most active active ref desk people, you form a minority. DirkvdM 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you the last word here; there's no point to further discussion. If you truly believe that somewhere on Wikipedia are the real admins, who'll punish me and my cabal for our oppression and censorship, then a likely next step is to file a Wikipedia:Request for comment to get organized community feedback. -- SCZenz 16:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's populated by people who know what they are talking about (people who are active at the ref desk), that's fine with me. I proposed to get a consensus about rules for deletion. And most of all if there should be any deletions at all. DirkvdM 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from your block

I'm looking forward to you answering questions on the number of spots on a ladybug's back with a rambling response that always somehow leads to everything being the fault of the "improper democracy in the US". :-) StuRat 10:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A block has its advantages. Not only do I get the opportunity to do some things in real life, I also get a warm welcome when I return. I should ask SCZenz to do this more often. :) DirkvdM 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, you need time to cash those government welfare checks. Or do they do direct deposit (because going to the bank would be too close to actual work) ? :-) StuRat 12:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands is a civilised nation. We don't send old ladies out in the cold to collect their pension. Or is this an employment scheme in the US? Get people to do the pointless work of manning tellers that could have been replaced by a computer? :) DirkvdM 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen buddy, 12 hrs may be a nice rest-- but 3 days or a week can seem VERY long. Also, when you come back, people have forgotten all about you! I should know! 8-)--Light current 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? :) DirkvdM 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've got an idea! Why not start our own little ref desks on our talk pages? Then they can block us all they want, we can still edit here! :) DirkvdM 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(maybe we should stop adding smileys - were starting to look like a bunch of grinning idiots DirkvdM 19:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

some of us are 8-))--Light current 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#The tone of the Reference Desk. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On your tone at the RD

Was this really necessary? It was a cheap shot, it was uncalled-for, and – worst of all – it makes you look like an ass, because the discussion was on-point and relevant to the question posed, and therefore wouldn't have been subject to removal under SCZenz's proposed practices. The only remark in that thread that perhaps ought to be removed is yours (as a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DICK, or maybe WP:POINT), and you well know it. Please try to engage in polite discussion if you have a dispute; the Ref Desk isn't a place for petty sniping. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have made the point on the Ref Desk Talk Page, myself, so readers don't have to hear about the silly proposals by some, like SCZenz, to remove all opinion questions from the RD. StuRat 15:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you must be reading a different proposal than the one I'm looking at here: User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals. It takes a very ungenerous parsing of SCZenz's proposal to read it as intending the removal of 'all opinion questions'. I'm sure that he would be glad to clarify his position if you asked; it doesn't make sense for us to debate a strawman position here.

Moreover, my concern is with DirkvdM's decision to engage in sniping rather than polite dialog; while doing it on the Talk page would have been better than on the Desk itself (if only because it would have kept the incivility and rude squabbling out of the eye of the general public on the page), the best possible solution would have been to continue to engage in polite discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I read:

"Comments that are off-topic, opinion, or argumentative will usually be removed to the reference desk talk page, with a link to the removed section, unless there is a reason not to do this."

What did you read ? StuRat 16:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read "Comments that are off-topic, opinion, or argumentative will usually be removed to the reference desk talk page, with a link to the removed section, unless there is a reason not to do this."

In other words, where opinion is actually called for in the question, there's a strong reason for the comments to remain. Note that there's no stipulation that questions calling for some comment or opinion be removed. Please also bear in mind "My intention is only to remove the most egregious examples of these problems, when I feel the harm done by leaving them in is particularly problematic."

Honestly, I don't think SCZ's intent is to be a cruel hardass who wants to suck all joy and playfulness out of Wikipedia. He's just observed – as have many others – that sometimes the 'playing around' side of some comments on the RD has started to hurt the RD's welcoming atmosphere (sometimes crossing over into WP:BITE), reducing its usefulness and sometimes putting a rather childish face on that part of the project. If people want to help out at the Ref Desk, they don't have to wear a suit and tie; we're all volunteers here, after all. But it's not unreasonable to ask them to zip up their fly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you caught me there. Ok, I'm decent again now. :) DirkvdM 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the question, not the answers. According to SCZenz that should have been deleted because it violates the rules (he specifically said that), in casu the rule that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. People don't seem to realise how much impact his proposal has if it is to be followed through consistently. That's why I 'theatened' to start doing that myself, to make it clear. But that would be childish. So I thought about placing a note everywhere where a deletion should occur according to SCZenz. But after the first time I decided I wouldn't be able to keep that up, and indeed would be rather disruptive, so I stopped after that. But then think how disruptive deleting such questions would be. Note, though, how easily things can be misunderstood. And there is no way that using the talk page for the ref desk is going to work (it all happens too fast). So where could things be discussed then? Right, at the ref desk itself. DirkvdM 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the statement: "My intention is only to remove the most egregious examples of these problems, when I feel the harm done by leaving them in is particularly problematic." That sounds good, but doesn't seem to be what User:SCZenz actually did. Instead he started removing very minor things, and then blocked Dirk for putting one back. This was an extreme overreaction on his part. StuRat 02:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove Ref Desk Comment

Dirk,

I think the following, while possibly true, is probably not appropriate for the Ref Desk:

Careful with irony if your answer may not be appropriate. Big bad SCZenz might delete your post. DirkvdM 09:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We should try to protect users, especially newbies, from our little squabbles. Would you consider removing it ? I won't remove it, so the choice is yours. StuRat 09:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Someone else removed it without notifying me, so I put it back again (along with the other two he removed). This is the sort of thing I'm most afraid of with this recent censorship-tendency. The way you approach this is the way this should be done. First try to convince people, before you use brute force. SCZenz used a combination, which is always better than just removing stuff, but one should start with a gentle nudge and then, if necessary, gradually build up the 'force'. And may it be with you. :) DirkvdM 10:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hearing me out. StuRat 11:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I tried that suggestion repeatedly, with several users, to no effect. In retrospect, I should have given you a chance over the remark that I insisted you remove. The thing is, this is a wiki, and it honestly never occured to me that removing something that didn't help a page would be considered so egregiously offensive. Your continued references to censorship remain wildly off the mark. -- SCZenz 11:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And would you really prefer me asking nicely, if I was planning to remove the comment myself if you said "no"? -- SCZenz 11:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, "asking", knowing full well you're going to do so regardless of the response, is rather dishonest, in my opinion. And, admitting you're going to delete something no matter how the user responds, shows a lack of willingness to listen and compromise on your part. For one thing, you might simply have misunderstood a post (saw one word when another was really there, for example). As an Admin, you really need to learn to work with people, rather than dictate to them (every user should have this skill, but especially Admins). I fear that your attitude that "this is the way it's going to be" will get you into trouble on the Ref Desk and elsewhere. Indeed, it already has created a conflict with another Admin. I had hoped that this was the lesson you would take away from your "Wikibreak", but I fear you haven't yet learnt to work with others users. StuRat 11:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get that last sentence (SCZenz's second post), but yeah, asking nicely makes a world of difference. Convincing people to do it themselves will be much more constructive in the long run. At least it might make them be a bit more careful in the future. I've often found such a friendly approach to work very well. I don't know what wording you used. Could you link to an example? I might have some tips.

Why do you object to the word 'censorship'? That's what it is, isn't it? The definition in the article: "the editing, removing, or otherwise changing speech and other forms of human expression". DirkvdM 11:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word more commonly means "removing one POV and favoring another", which SCZenz doesn't do. StuRat 11:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your pov and I would remove it, wouldn't that then mean that I would be propagating my own pov by removing anyting that goes against it? :) Anyway, I prefer to stick to the more basic and general meaning the article gives. That's how I've always understood the word and I'm not aware of other people using your definition. My extensive Dutch dictionary (Dikke van Dale) gives five meanings, four clerical and the last one "breach of the freedom of speech". And I don't suppose SCZenz meant this in a clerical sense. :) DirkvdM 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fietspomp Met Slot

My fietspomp was stolen off my bike a couple of months ago but since they I'm sure I saw a bike with a special bracket into which a fietspomp was locked but I've not seen these anywhere for sale and was wondering if you too had seen them about or if I was mistaken in their existance.

Also, today the chainguard snapped (there's always something going wrong with that damn bike!) and I wanted to search for a new one (supppsong they can even be bought separately) but I don't know what you'd call such a thing in Dutch?

Thanks for your help (incidentally I'll be watching the reference desk issue unfold and vote accordingly since I agree that the reference desk wont work so well if it's 'all business'). --Username132 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I also noticed your anti-censorship user box, so I also became a member and I put up a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship.

If by 'chain guard' you mean the encasing around the chain, that's called a kettingkast (chain case) or kleerbeschermer (clothes protector). If you can't pronounce the latter, you can use the former. :) I don't know about ways to lock a fietspomp. My solution is to not have one. :) That is, I do have one, but the more sturdy standing type, which I keep indoors. If your tyres deflate too often it might make more sense to buy better tyres. DirkvdM 08:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opticien

Also, I scratched my glasses lens a while ago and need to get it replaced. In England one of the cheaper opticians would be 'Specsavers'. Would you happen to know who would be the more economical option in the Netherlands? --Username132 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't wear glasses, so I can't help you there. :( DirkvdM 10:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks anyway. Turns out you have Specsavers over here too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Username132 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment wanted on User:light current's one week block

I, and User:Gandalf61, and User:light current, as well as others, feel that the action of User:Friday in blocking User:light current for a week was unwarranted and excessive: [2]. We would appreciate your comments in this matter. StuRat 09:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion: [3] ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. (I realize you don't wish to participate in the Ref Desk itself, but I'm hoping you'll still participate in defining the rules for the Ref Desk). StuRat 07:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you return

Hello, Dirk. I saw that you decided to not edit at the RD anymore. Let me just say that, while I understand the frustration and lack of interest in dealing with the convoluted and conflicted situation at the desk's talk page, things seem to be cooling down now, and there are new signs of constructive dialogue - I do hope you reconsider. I'd miss Dirk's quirky smirks and surreality. (Seriously, you add a lot to the RD, IMO.) Hope to you see you there soon again. ---Sluzzelin 10:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might give me a barn star to strengthen my position in the discussions. :)

But seriously, as long as people like SCZenz are patrolling the ref desks, ready to delete anything that doesn't appeal to them, I constantly have to beware if what I say might get deleted - especially those smirks. In an article that makes sense. But not at a talk page (the ref desk basically is the talk page for Wikipedia as a whole). If there would be a way to keep track of deletions, that might change things. At the moment, however, with somewhere near 1000 edits per day, that is impossible to do. Maybe a separate history page showing only edits to existing posts (by another user), but I doubt if that would be technically an easy thing to do. So alas. :( DirkvdM 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was gone and missed all the fun; I have now seen that you got blocked (LOL. No offense, but there's something inherently absurd about that). I could, of course, promise you a star if you returned.:P

I understand your point, but I'm equally pessimistic regarding the separate history page. I'm just hoping that everything cools down somewhat. Though I totally disagree with the block and the fashion in which posts were deleted, I do think that SCZenz has been trying hard to keep things civil, explain his actions, and was acting in his own good faith. Perhaps he's a man on a mission, but better to keep the discourse going, and see whether people can be persuaded to take less harsh actions in the future, IMO. Stu has been working hard to achieve a rational dialogue and (perhaps) consensus at the RD's talk-page, and I intend to support this process. But, hey, I respect your decision and resolve, and remain hopeful that you too can be persuaded to return some day. :) Meanwhile, take care, and happy editing and photographing! ---Sluzzelin 15:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billiards disambiguation

I noted your participation in an old topic on this subject and thought you might like to know that a consensus !vote is underway on this topic, at Talk:Billiards#Proposed disambiguation page (which is not controversial), and more importantly on the topic immediately above it, which the disambig move depends on, and which probably needs more input. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RVV

DirkvdM. You do realize that "rvv" means revert vandalism? If you, please do not call me a vandal as you did here. It violates wikipedia policy and troubles the dispute resolution. If you do not, than see this message as though it was not send. Happy editing! C mon 10:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to say 'rerevert', but that would have to be 'rrv'. Now I wonder how often I have unintentionally accused people of vandalism. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Of course I can not regard your message as not sent because then who would I be talking to now? :) DirkvdM 12:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for Ref Desk opinions ?

Would you care to comment on rules for Ref Desk opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Next_item_for_consensus_discussion:_Opinion ? StuRat 17:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ?

Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Opinions_on_template_removal ? StuRat 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space race

Note to myself: keep an eye on the merger of the following:

Timeline of the Space Race (the old incomplete one)
Timeline of space exploration (the same, after my expansion)
List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969 (too limited in time)

and the discussion over that at Talk:List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969#Merge w/Timeline of the Space Race. DirkvdM 10:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poffertjes

I bought a mix to make my own poffertjes (stupid of me really, since all it seems to contain is two types of flour, rijsmiddelen (which don't sound very important) and salt... you have to supply the eggs, milk and oil yourself (plus the sugar or butter). Anyway.. my question is about the shape of the pofferjes - if I just tip a spoon of mix into a hot pan, it's going to make a splat shape, isn't it? Am I supposed to have some kind of poffertje pan for making them the right shape? --Username132 (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It's called a poffertjespan. They come in many shapes and sizes, as a google image search shows. DirkvdM 19:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules

Vote here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. StuRat 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Glaspaleis_drawings_situation.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Glaspaleis_drawings_situation.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit silly talking to a bot, but I gave the expalantion with the upload. :) DirkvdM 07:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Why we are in each other's hairs"

Quite honestly I dislike people psychologizing (psychologiseren) about other who they only know from the internet. But I'll try to explain why I think that we don't see eye to eye on many cases. BTW do not take this wrongly, this is just my analysis of why we clash, this does not mean that I think you are less and I am far superior, it's just that I'm quite sure of what I'm doing in this minute part of human knowledge:

We are both stubborn and convinced of our own beliefs. Because Dutch politics on wikipedia is quite a niche and not many other editors interfere, this does not matter until you meet somebody who is as stubborn: the people clash
I am a straight-A student of political science (I take the "prestiguous" research master for which you are selected on basis of academic preformance) at Leiden University, my teachers are the creme de la creme of Dutch political science, including professors like Ruud Koole and Peter Mair, but even then I know more facts and trivia on Dutch politics than many of the other students and teachers. (Dutch) political parties and party systems are my passion, specialization and field of interest (see my contributions, I've written almost every en.wikipedia article of a Dutch parties). I am, in my own view rightfully so, quite convinced of my own knowledge about Dutch politics.
While in my view, you have far less knowledge about Dutch politics and political science and far more follow your own hunches and musings: that's fine, as long as it does interfere with facts, science and logic. You continually misrepresent the facts not in trade for a systematic or logical approach but for hunches you follow which are not based on academic sources or theories.

In my view our difference is like the difference between the dreamer and the scientist, and on wikipedia the second has clear priority. BTW I completely disagree with me being portrayed as an "alpha" who is obsessed by facts, my best subjects are statistics and methodology, esp. because of my "beta"-approach to political science. - C mon 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, a misunderstanding about our misunderstandings. :) I didn't mean to say you were an alpha guy and I don't see how that links with being obsessed with facts. It's just that most people reason from the status quo, while I reason from, well, whatever might be possible. Pure theory. In that sense I could indeed be called a dreamer. And I'm not a scientist, but, like I said, I do usually reason from the hard science side of things. And while we're not being modest - when it comes to my analytical capacities, maybe I should point out that, apart from having studied Logic and philosophy of science (with Jon Dorling), I used to be Dutch Mensa member number 1851. So our disputes are a bit of a clash of two different types of titans. :) For example, you use the phrase "stubborn and convinced of our own beliefs". The second follows from the first and is therefore obsolete. I've noticed before that you use the same argument twice as if they're separate arguments, thus counting as two, not one. And a phrase like "I am, in my own view rightfully so, ..." sends shivers down my spine. Maybe you've been exposed to political thinking too much. :)

The hunches I put in articles I usually get from the NRC opinion pages. But I can't link to those, so maybe that makes it look like I'm putting forward my own theories.

Our disputes over the tables and political colours show my preposition to be systematic. In the first one I want as much information together as possible. I made that table for myself and use it a lot for reference. So I thought I'd add it to Wikipedia, so others with my mindset can use it. There should be room for both and both our tables are in different places in Wikipedia, which is fine with me (now - I've turned the table on myself so to say :) ). In the colours discussion I also use as much as possible a systematic, theoretical approach. But like I said, that has to meet with reality. So ideally together we should be able to get this right. ultimately I don't care very much which colours are used, just that they should be picked in a logical way.

Btw, I didn't know there are Dutch schools that give grades in letters. Is that a Leiden thing? DirkvdM 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You studied philosophy? Why don't you see the sheer beauty of the CDA getting yellow as neither socialist or liberal and D66 getting purple as both socialist and liberal. That's translating logical operators to colours, I'm still amazed by the beauty of that. But let's leave that discussion for some where else.

While were on the subject of logic, your defense makes little sense: while I proved my expertise in Dutch politics by citing my academic "carreer" you showed your expertise in logic by doing so: what does that matter for politics of the Netherlands-related articles?

You claim to like theoretic approaches to politics. So do I, as a good scientist, I think there can be no observation without prior theory. So what political science theory do you use: political psychology? Institutionalism? Rational Choice? Or are you an eclecticist? Or a structural-functionalist?

I must have missed the NRC article in which they proposed to mistake elections with cabinet formation or where they proposed that purple was a good colour for the CDA as it opposed the purple coalition.

Furthermore many of your hunches come down to original "research", which is not supposed to be included in wikipedia. Wikipedia is primarily a place for fact and secondarily for academically accepted theories, not for one's own musings that's why people invented blogs.

I could fully agree with multiple tables on wikipedia (I actually endorse that position) as long as those tables are true to the facts and not represent some ones theory: this an encyclopedia not a sketch book!

I think my point is clear: we are not seeing eye to eye because I know something about the subject and you have common sense combined with genious leading to musings. I hope there is no need the need to spell out which are favoured by wikipedia policy. C mon 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW1 if you used to be a mensa member you must realize that there aren't many people that have the same mindset as yours and statistically the chance of such a person looking for wikipedia for Dutch politics information is neglible and therefore the template is a waste of time?

BTW2 straight-A student is an expression from English.

The relevance of my philosophy study in above discussions lies in the fact that they are more about method than about content. Actually, not being too involved with the details can even be an advantage because that may allow one a better perspective on what the main issues are (note my careful wording). I don't follow specific philosophies. I am 'ontzuild' to the extreme, even in that field. I have used my studies mainly to develop my logical thinking. Anyway the colours issue requires little more than that. I also got into that because of my interest in the field of graphics (I worked as a photographer and graphical designer for a while).

I didn't get the idea of combining various types of info in one table, nor the colour scheme, from NRC. :) If there were an accepted colour scheme already there wouldn't have to be this discussion. Of course it's OR. But it's not a theory. If there is something factually wrong in my table, please point it out. And it doesn't quite take a Mensa member to read that table. Give people some credit. Anyway, any encyclopedia will attract a disproportionate amount of higher educated people. And one that one can contribute to oneself is probably an even bigger magnet to the educated. Those who don't understand the table can ignore it. It isn't like it is misleading (as graphs in the mass media often are).

I know straight A is an English expression (so it is meaningless in Dutch education). I was just being ironic, while leaving the option open that there is indeed such a grading system in Leiden. :)

Btw, we cooperated quite nicely on Politics of the Netherlands (terminology). DirkvdM 08:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I've made a list of 17 problems with the template some factual and some theoretical, I posted it about a week ago on talk:politics of the Netherlands. These problems lead me to conclude that your table is based on systematic errors and mistakes, which can't be edited away. And it is misleading because it implies that elections and cabinet formations are the same, while they are separate entities! BTW You did not get around replying to it.

I don't think you can make a system for Dutch political colours or tables without prior knowledge and some theory. And here we see the problem, in both cases your "logical system" often gets clogged by following musing, hunches or trivialities, which leads to nonsense, like purple being the literugical colour and therefore the colour of the CDA. Quite simply you prove the philosophy of science credo that theory must go before observation.

And I remember us cooperating on various pages, however your the one who started making this personal: I have no problems with you, only with some of your edits. C mon 09:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where and when did I make anything personal? DirkvdM 10:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of those nice murkey detail questions! Let me show you some facts:

Here, stating that we have different methods, hard science and murkey details, and here, calling me inconsistent, and here calling me hypocritical. When looking back it borders "Wikipedia:No personal attacks" because you commented on the editor, c.q. me, instead of on the content. C mon 16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, those were personal, but saying our methods differ is hardly offensive (and please don't misquote me). Also notice the unwritten smiley. As for the second one, I said you wer not being very consistent, which is not the same and was true and hardly offensive (and notice the written smiley). And for the third one, I called you a bit hypocritical (please stop misquoting me), because you said you could have lived with peaceful coexistence of our tables but kept on (re)moving my table nonetheless (while I never touched yours), which was indeed a bit hypocritical. So I grant you those were indeed personal, but true, reasonable observations about the discussions and not very offensive. So not a big deal. At least not intended thus on my part.

Oh, and Happy New Year, if that isn't too personal. :) DirkvdM 08:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's quit the personal "conflict" and return to the encyclopedia writing. It was never my intention to critize you for bringing thus up, I merely wanted to point out that you. But on substance will you ever get around answering my 17 issues with "your" template? (they're here.

Happy editing in 2007. C mon 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays !

You may want to consider endorsing this petition: User_talk:Friday#Petition_to_recall_User:Friday_from_the_position_of_admin. StuRat 12:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blokkade

Ik heb bij de mama-site een 'Pietje' aangemaakt en die voor de grap voor twee uur geblokkeerd. Gelukkig niet langer, want het bleek dat, omdat ik die via mijn eigen computer en dus mijn eigen IP adres had aangemaakt, de blokkade ook voor mezelf gold. Ik was wel nog steeds sysop en zo, maar kan niets meer doen. Ik zie ook niet hoe ik zou kunnen 'unblocken', maar dat zou sowieso niet gelukt zijn als ik zelf geblokkeerd ben. Als ik de block permanent gemaakt zou hebben zou ik helemaal nooit meer vanaf mijn computer aan de (sub)site hebben kunnen werken en had ik opnieuw kunnen beginnen! Ik realiseer me nu trouwens dat als iemand anders op de afdeling geblokkeerd wordt op Wikipedia (of waar ook) ik gelijk ook geblokkeerd word. En alles wat zij editen daar of elders komt ook op 'mijn' conto te staan. En dan is er nog zoiets als het doorgeven van geblokkeerde IP adressen aan andere Wikis. Ik weet niet in welke mate dat gebeurt, maar ik moet dus uitkijken wat ik doe met mijn sysop rights doe. Zie ook [4]. Daar staat trouwens niet 'sysop' tussen. Dat schijnt hetzelfde te zijn als 'admin'. Als ik het goed begrijp. DirkvdM 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your picture of vintage car havanna

Hello Dirk,

I would like to use your picture on a CD-Cover. 500 Cds are going to be released on a small jazzlabel. Can you please tell me how musch it would cost?

Thank you, Franziska -- email address removed --

poison dart frogs

need high resolution digital images of poison dart frogs in all four colors. do you have?

What do you need it for? DirkvdM 09:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Don't forget that talk pages are for improving wikipdeia - even the reference desk talk pages. And not for 'arguing the toss'87.102.10.217 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't make any jokes about tossing, but what does that mean? DirkvdM 06:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant not to argue 'back and forth' to no effect. (You got me)87.102.20.186 11:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what you are talking about. Nor who you are, for that matter. Are you that person who seems to be pissing a lot of people off at the ref deks talk page recently? DirkvdM 13:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I annoyed Loomis here Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Why_are_the_Crusades_Viewed_so_Negatively.? which wasn't my intention. I meant this when I said 'arguing the toss'

Ahh, but there's one key thing you're overlooking: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Sorry, take it elsewhere. Friday (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC) There's one key thing you are overlooking - the ref desk is Wikipedia's talk page. The encyclopedia proper should definitely be free of pov, so you take that there. :) DirkvdM 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC) There is no page on all of Wikipedia where such soapboxing about our personal opinions is relevant. Friday (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC) That's pov. Should I now remove your comment? DirkvdM 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You should look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Why are the Crusades Viewed so Negatively? - Loomis here has set up a false supposition - ie that crusades are view negatively but jihads are not. Also why didn't he just ask "why is the term crusade viewed negatively nowadays but not muslim conquests?" - all the stuff about 9/11 and the fact that it's not even true makes it look (to some) like soapboxing or even pov pushing - hence the attempted removal. Hope that explains.87.102.11.134 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and sorry for bothering you - with hindsight perhaps it was inpolite. Please feel free to delete the whole thing.87.102.11.134 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read what I wrote at that ref desk talk page thread you should know that I'd be the last person to do something like that. DirkvdM 18:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holguín tree

I have never heard that tree called a Holguin tree, and a google search on "Holguin tree" only throws up mirrors of Wikipedia. Do you have any support for that statement ? Who told you that was its name ? -- Beardo 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I read it in the Rough Guide to Cuba, but I can't find it. I now vaguely remember someone in Cuba telling me this (acutally on that spot where I took the photo). But Googling it (in Spanish) doesn't turn up anything either. A case of bad research. Sorry about that. I see you've already removed the photo from the article. I'll now adapt the text in the photo description. Thanks for pointing this out. DirkvdM 10:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back, You Lazy Ass Pinko Dutch Prick! :-)

Seriously, though we disagree on pretty much everything else, I appreciate your comments and support concerning the censoring of my question, and I fully agree on your take on "what the RefDesk really is". Hopefully, though, we can put all this warmth and fuzziness behind us, and get back to ripping each others' arguments apart as it should be! Looking forward to future ideological battles with you, thanks again.

Loomis 16:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinko? Don't overestimate my knowledge of (American?) English colloquialisms. To the only explanation I can think of I'd like to react by saying that I may be happy, but that doesn't make me gay. :) Anyway, I'm not back at the ref desk. Like I said in my comments, I had a quick look to see how the censorship-discussion had developed and it seems to have gotten worse, considering how the guy who censored you was dealt with. Censorship had become normal, just what I predicted a few months ago. So you'll have to do without me. I hope some other people are giving you a hard time in my stead. :) DirkvdM 07:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political. See Pinko. (SEWilco 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikitable

Note to myself: for how to use the style of a wikitable see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Tables#Style_classes which leads to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Tables#Style_classes but then I'm stuck. Still need to look into this. DirkvdM 18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Thanks, I think. My fourth barnstar. But what is it for? Black helicopter, as I understand it, refers to US paramilitary conspirationists or something and none of that applies to me in any way. You created the award but didn't provide an explanation, saying merely that that is not a requirement. In other words, you want people to guess, but I'm at a loss. Looking at your history I don't see where we might have met. Looking at your user page the only thing in common I see is volcanoes and climate change. I still don't get it. You didn't sign your post here and the only thing I could get from that is that you want to remain anonymous, but that, of course, is a joke on a wiki. So I still don't get it. DirkvdM 06:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not anonymous, just mysterious. It's given in good humor due to something you did months ago. Enjoy it or bury it in the dark of night. (SEWilco 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm trying to enjoy it, but it would help if I knew what it meant and what it is for. I like mysteries, but they have to be soluble. 'Months ago' is a bit vague. DirkvdM 07:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:David

Recently you told User:David that his signature was too tall. In reality, the signature in question was User:MuDavid's. I'm not sure why his signature directs you there, but User:David has no contributions anywhere. - AMP'd 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only remember saying that to someone once, but that was over a year ago and I can't remeber who it was. DirkvdM 06:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just realized that. Still, User:David has no contributions and User:MuDavid's signature directs you there. - AMP'd 15:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coati photo

Hello Dirk,

I do image research for children's books at becker&mayer! in Bellevue, Washington (US). I've been looking around for a photo of a coatimundi climing down a tree, and, not finding anything, I settled on a photo of a coati sitting on a tree branch... then today, quite by accident, I found your photo on wikipedia. Your coati is not exactly upside down on a tree trunk, but it's facing down!

Would you grant us permission to put this image in our book titled The Field Guide to Rain Forest Animals? The book is one in a series including Safari Animals and Ocean Animals. The three books contain fun/factual information about animals and come with paper-engineered animals that the children put together.

All the best, Zena, Research, Juvenile Books, becker&mayer!

Portal:Cuba

Hi DirkvdM, take a look at the pictures on rotation here : Portal:Cuba/Selected picture. There are a few you might recognise! Thought I'd let you know that they're being put to good use!-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, half of those photos are mine. Or is that temporary? I didn't know about this feature. I'll have to look into it. DirkvdM 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photos are on permanent rotation, randomised so a different one appears on the Portal each time you go to the Portal:Cuba or purge the cache by clicking "Show new selections".-- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Desk

Are you coming back anytime soon? · AO ^Talk 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not very likely considering the various things going on in my 'real' life at the moment. And of course there's the censorship madness. If that is ended in some way, tell me, and I might consider returning. DirkvdM 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Name!

Hi Dirk

You edited a page on my watchlist, and I noticed how similar you user name is to mine. :-) GaryvdM ^(Talk) 14:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! DirkvdM 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was an attempt at saying something cool, but maybe I shouldn't have pointed that out, because now it doesn't quite look cool anymore. Damn!

The most annoying sig ever (From Walter Humala)

yeah a sig I've been using blink, and annoys people, even me. so I removed the effect around 2 weeks ago if you had noticed and don't use it anymore. Best regards. --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hi,

I've enjoyed looking at your photos. I work at an ad agency in Colorado. We do work for Globus travel and often need photos. I really like your work. We need pics of Venice, Rome, Florence, Amsterdam, Switzerland,Vienna, Paris, Nice, London, Ireland, and Budapest mostly. We usually use Royalty Free photos from getty.com, but I would like to find out what your basic rates for photos are.

DeAnna

As a rough guideline, I ask 100 euro for a publication of up to 10,000 copies, although that is negotiable, depending on the quality of the photo. Of course, this also depends on how the photos are to be published. Will they be used for travel magazines or such or on your website (in which case 'number of copies' is not applicable)? Also, I am now talking about photos I have already made. If I'd have to travel for new photos, I'd need some sort of guaranteed income, such as a minimum amount of photos purchased, but we can deal with that on a per-case basis, gradually building up mutual trust. Could you give me some more info, such as the form of publication, the type of photo you desire and a price-indication? DirkvdM 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glaspaleis_balustrade.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Glaspaleis_balustrade.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I replaced it with a photograph of my own shortly after receiving this message. DirkvdM 06:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

de:Schunk -> de:Schunck

Hello, i would appreciate, if you could give my quick and dirty expansion of the Schunk article within the german wikipedia a short crosscheck. The english version is very interesting, but it would take me days to create a correct translation. So i'd read it once and made a short summary in German, i hope, i picked up some events, this company is remarkable for. German extinguish specialists are sometimes very quick in feeding the deletion queue for articles, if some "keywords" don't show up in a very early version of the article. So i decided to proceed this way, because a complete translation would take me to much time. At this time i'm little bit unhappy about some, lets say, not directly recognisable facts in the english version. But maybe, you could help me with this. So in a first read i couldn't find the exact number of branches, they'd ever run, in the english version, and some dates for the key events would help either (e.g. company transfer from a family member to the other, the bus system, which i found very interesting..), company organisation, e.g. what businesses had been worked on beginning at which time, isn't very clear. When did they start e.g. sale of food? Why? Diversification? What other goods did they sell? When was the company switched to a shareholder company? Why? When? I'd only picked the information, that Christina Schunk bought back the shares in the end of the 1960s. Ok, too many questions for a small request (maybe me english needs some polish either), thank's in advance for spending some time on it, --84.171.115.7 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to just a few of your questions which I can answer off-hand: I am also trying to establish how many busineses Schunk has had or participated in. Of many I don't know the exact connection with the business yet, such as Käller-Schunck, a business run by a daughter of Peter Schunck and her husband. I think it is safe to say there was really just one central business with a branch in Geleen. The Markthallen were owned by Schunck, but the weren't Schunck. More details (too many details, actually) can be found on the talk page. When the bus company started I'm still trying to figure out, but it was probably around 1910. The sale of comestibles (food) started in the latest building, at the Promenade, and was indeed a matter of diversification, which they later regretted.

I'm sorry, the bit about the Promenade building is still a mess. I was working on that when something else started taking up my time and I haven't picked it up since.

And let me give you a little help polishing your English. You twice used the word 'either' when you should have used 'too'. 'Either' is used in a negative connotation. So you should say "this is the case too" or "this is not the case either". Now I'll have a look at the German article and if I do some more writing there then you can correct my German. :)

And thank you for spending time on the translation. DirkvdM 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked and made a few adjustments. Other than that it looks good, although I would have written more about the earlietr years because I find those most interresting. But that's my deviation, so to say. :) I'm apalled at my German. Even those few lines I wrote were full of errors and reading your addition went way too slow. My German is extremely rusty.

Oh, and thank you for misspelling the name. It's 'Schunck', not 'Schunk'. As a result your link led me to the wrong article, so I could add 'Schunck' to the top of that page. Let's call that providence. :) DirkvdM 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response. I'd seen one of those Schunk / Schunck mistakes of mine, but unfortunately i didn't fix the others. Yes, one might name it providence, before your addition the article was assumed to be in the queue of unlinked articles. Now you created at least one cross-connection. But in principle a disambigous page is needed, i think, i'll create it later, when the content of the article has got more facts. That is the reason, why i started late in this family history with translation. The early years might be more interesting, but unfortunately they don't show up the facts, "German WP deletion force" regards as a "Relevanzkriterium" to pass a "survival ticket" to an article. So e.g. the personal description of Peter or Arnold or Christine Schunck should better be put to separate articles, linked by such an disambigous page. According to your hint i'd checked that part of the en-wp article and found some more info about the transportation system. Tried to improve the de-wp article with some of those en-wp pictures, but it seems, as if they are not loaded on commons (if you guess, you are right, it's the bus picture, what i was interested in :-)) . Another improvement would be the infobox_unternehmen, but unfortunately i didn't find all the information to be filled in, so i didn't insert it. Such a box could be found in many german wp-articles about companies, because it shows the most important information for a decision, whether a company is regarded as relevant or not, that is e.g. the number of employees (more than 1.000), organisation (e.g. Aktiengesellschaft or GmbH, Aktiengesellschaft, a shareholder company, would be the best option, in case it was one) and the total revenue per year (should be more than 100 Mio. Euro/year). That is the reason, why i'd asked for more "facts", it would be nice, if your could insert those, if you've access to those kind of informations. It should work for now without such a box, because some of these informations could be found in the text. And the whole rest is only a matter of time for translating it. Same with my English, and your German, it only needs time and training. But connotation is difficult to read, if you aren't in touch with the language in day by day business, you'll not be able to "read between the lines", as it's known in Germany.

I'd just added one of those attached links from en-wp, to give the article a more serious touch. And it seems, as if your crosslink worked, somebody passed some links to the article a few minutes before. --84.171.120.231 00:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a case for disambiguation because the spellings are different. But is does make sense to refer to the other in each article. Do I understand correctly that you mean to say the article might get deleted unless it develops into a full article very quickly? If so, the German deletionists are pretty severe. Can't it just be called a 'stub', or whatever the German term for that is? Also, making separate articles for the various people in the family would make this worse because the info on them would be even more limited. Are those minima for the values in the infobox a minimum for having an article on a company? Surely not. That would be extremely strict. Anyway, it's a former business, so it wouldn't apply - which period in its history should the infobox cover? And this sort of info is not always (legally) available. In this case, if you want them for when the company was biggest, that info is not available at the best source of info I know of, the company archives, kept in the city archives of Heerlen, but there, it is not publicly available if it is less than 50 years old. DirkvdM 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, about the disambiguation, there are of course also the other ones with the same spelling. But those are people, with first names, so the name of the article should be the whole name. For the business it should be just 'Schunck'. Else, one would get something like 'Schunck (geschäft)'. The disambiguation page would have to be called the German equivalent of 'Schunck (disambiguation)' anyway, so if you use both, 'Schunck' would not be the header of any article. I suppose this would be different if one of those people is rather well known in Germany, to the extent that people who fill in 'Schunck' can reasonably expect to be redirected to the article on that specific person. Is any one (and just one) of them that well known?

We should really be having this discussion on the article talk page, but then I'd have to expose my lousy German. :) DirkvdM 07:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say it that way: It's not severe and imho its not any more the idea to improve quality, its only unpredictable. There are about 100 articles a day in the queue of deletion requests, of which at least 20% to 30% are of the origin of two people, all referring to the same theme of interest (today it was Linux and Listen). Discussion is more or less useless, if they write, e.g. i dont understand, they'll find five more to agree, none of them seems to have any idea of what he is writing about, but he votes for deletion (sometimes without reading). Stubs are not any more a class of articles in german wp. There seems to be an gentlement agreement, what information an stub like article should hold at least.

That's the reason, why i did this quick expansion, which hopefully covers the necessary information (employees and so on) and which is hopefully near to the facts. And i agree too (did i learn something ?), that omitting the founders would make the article holding less informations. But the person itself (if a separate article is accepted according to the "Relevanzkriterien") should have a separate article, so information within Schunck is very limited (e.g. the birth date and so on have only be added to make this info available, which isn't accessable without a separate article about them like now). So i'd concentrated first on the company, the persons might follow later (and fill up the disambigous page for Schunck (Begriffsklärung) with a link to Schunk (Unternehmen) or Schunck (Kaufhaus) (e.g.)).

And yes, you are right, such an Infobox might be not to usefull for an historic company, it had been mentioned only as an example, what kind of information should be given in an article. And if it would be inserted, it should hold the latest available informations, which could be proved somehow (for living companies usually by weblinks to the company or e.g. the stock exchange). Nobody wants information from unofficial sources, but if the company was, as i understood, on a public listing (Christina Schunck bought back the shares), then i would assume, the information is not only in an archive, those companies are legally bound to annonce their shareholder meetings and a yearly renenue report. That is the source i would refer to (e.g. newspapers, web pages, public reports and so on).

The information about these core numbers is now somewhere in the text, but if you'll take the en-wp Schunck as example, how long would you need to extract this essential information from the text? For that reason the article has to be divided in separate divisions, what i didn't do up to know, one should be Geschichte and normally another one hold's information about the companies structure, ownership, company relations (e.g. holds 50% of this other companies shares). But up to now this structure is not too clear to me, so i didn't process it this way.

About the two persons (artist and judge): I didn't know them before, and normally no persons are granted a link from their surname to the article (at least, if you omit the Napoleon class of people :-)). So Schunck should either point to the company itself with this article holding a disambigous page type 2 (as it is now) or Schunck should point to the disambigous page, which points to the Schunck (Einzelhandel) or Schunck (Unternehmen). That would be the disambigous page type 1. If it would be finetuned, it would hold references to other spellings or mispellings (like Schunk or Schunck).

All these things are of less importance. But i would appreciate, if the legal form (now i've got the right expression) could be confirmed as a shareholder company or Aktiengesellschaft. I couldn't hardly believe, that that is an restricted information. Because for now i wrote, that it was one, but i'm not sure and if i'm wrong, i would appreciate to have that fixed before the article is shown on a too prominent place (e.g. at an disambigous page or new articles list). If Schunck never ever was on a public listing or never was a shareholder company, that has to be corrected first. If it had been an Aktiengesellschaft, that would help it a little bit more to meet the relevance level.

Last item:Discussion page, according to my first "chapter" it's unpredictable. If some doubt might show up on discussion pages of articles, some people mark the arcticle holding uncertain information or sources missing. Next fraction is following those landmarks and expands them with deletion request (letter by letter, some days you have up to 10 articles by one person in the deletion queue, all marked with the same flag like "without sources" before). That is one reason, why i wouldn't put any discussion on article discussion pages, if the article itself seems not to be confirmed enough by sources. I don't want to feed deletionists. --84.171.108.162 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather silly. If you don't know some specific thingies about something then you pretend it doesn't exist and throw out everything you know about it, keeping that info from other people? I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to share information. I already left the reference desk because of the uncontrolled actions of deletionists getting out of hand and now I don't feel like contributing anything to the German Wikipedia anymore because my work may be deleted on a whim by some ignoramus. My time is too precious for that. Also, at the moment I'm too busy with other things to put the time into this that is required to keep the article from being deleted. And even then it might still get deleted? This is not my Wikipedia. Sorry, but I'm out. For now. I'll probably come across the financial stuff later, but I decide when I put time into this and what I come up with is detemined largely by chance. Not by other people. It's my time I'm putting into his for free. Those deletionists should be made aware that Wikipedia is based on volunteer work.

Your last remark is another argument. That's really silly. We can't properly discuss the shortcomings of an article because that would feed deletionists. So officially we pretend everything is fine precisely when it isn't. A related argument is that once the article is deleted the duscussion is too. So next time someone wants to write it, they can't learn from the findings of others.

As to how the aricle should be organised: there are no hard and fast rules, just guidelines. Generally it is best to follow the guidelines if you know them, but if they turn out not to be convenient (for the moment) you should be able to deviate. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Not just the content, but also the 'rules'. These are not imposed by some guys at the top because there are no guys at the top. There's just us. You and me and millions of others like us. We're all equal.

Wikipedia is us. We make the rules. DirkvdM 11:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images in userspace

Hello, DirkvdM. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Glaspaleis by night.jpg) was found at the following location: User:DirkvdM/Photographs. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received this same message for four images (so I reduced it to just one message by making a list):

DirkvdM 06:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]