User talk:VanBuren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:VanBurenen)
Jump to: navigation, search

Open door.


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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Chin Woo>Ching Wu[edit]

These are in fact the same. Most people make the mistake of calling it a "martial arts academy" bc that's what it primarily teaches, but if you look at the article its called the athletic association. VanTucky 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Then article Chin Woo Athletic Association could/should be expanded with this information, as well as about it being a teaching source for LHBF. VanBurenen 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Guanxi and Kongsi?[edit]

I'd say they are complemetary. Kongsi is roughly a social group, the exact meaning of the term has shifted subtly to a mean commercial enterprise over the years. Guanxi is interpersonal behaviour, which could be practised in or even a characteristic of the group dynamic. --Fire Star 火星 19:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Antwoord op : User talk:Ag2003 gr. Mion 06:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Hello VanBurenen. I would appreciate it if you would quit deleting the External Link I am adding on the Liuhebafa page to my book, Ride Backwards on Dragon. The book contains 28 pages of endnotes decoding the Taoist symbolism (physical, metaphysical, and alchemical) of the 66 titles of the main form. This information has never before been published - at least not in any systematic way. And even if you personally are not interested in it, I am sure there are many practitioners of Liuhebafa and the other Taoist internal arts who would like to know that this resources exists. This is a unique resource of never-before-published information on Liuhebafa. Thanks. -Kim Goldberg, Gaiarising (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Premier of China[edit]

Thanks for your message. Please check List of premiers of China, which I just added to Premier of the Republic of China. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi, on the talk of Hydrocyclone, is the short time solution, speedy delete, on basis of empty basis and consensus. a seperate article about several types of sand separators would be here Cheers Mion (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --VanBurenen (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome, and once the new sand separator article is made we can check the what links here as in a normal move. Mion (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this on the new article you're going to make ? -:)Mion (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Also a sand separator, indeed. Good one! --VanBurenen (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

List of lakes[edit]

Thanks for the weird support and criticism at the same time. I - like most - am only one editor. As I came across the list I did what I could with the time I had. As it appears to be in dire need of scrubbing, I will focus more efforts on the list.

Just so you know, you mentioned Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

  • Loch (usually Lough as a name element outside Scotland) is proper usage in English.
  • Lough is an Irish-English form of the Old Irish word loch, which means lake, or bay. The form Loch is also used in Irish English and Scottish English. And because English wiki uses the appropriate English for the article when its topic is highly concentrated (such as the English "criticised" instead of "criticized" for English as opposed to American English articles), these titles are proper on English wiki.
  • Llyn is the Welsh word for pond or lake

My whole concentration with that list was when I saw several lakes listed as

  • "Lago de" or "Lago di" (which is Spanish or Italian, respectively)
  • "See" (which is German or Dutch)
  • "Lac" (which is French)

So I did what I could at the time. Interestingly enough, there is both a Dutch lake and a Swiss lake that users are attempting to keep in the native language here on English wiki. I have provided evidence of the English usage and hope this clears things up. I was even criticized on my talk page for not knowing translations. While I am not perfect, I find it interesting that someone would criticize me rather than roll up their sleeves and help with the proper usage. So be it. I just find it odd that users will attempt to keep a native spelling when, for example, Lake Michigan is properly translated to "Michigansee" in German. Does that mean that we go to those other wikis (Spanish, French, Italian, German, Dutch) and change all the articles to "Lake"? Nope. But some have a tainted viewpoint in English wiki.

Myself and another author worked hard on the List of castles to standardize and clean it up - I will focus on doing the same with the list of lakes. My belief would be the same as the list of castles, in that if a country list has, say, over 10 or so lakes - then it should be diverted to its own article and a main tag should be inserted as in the list of castles. What do you think? Do you wish to help me? :) Rarelibra (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Elsewhere you pointed to this: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words. I would like to point you to the last paragraph here: Wikipedia:Proper_names#Place_names:
As features on the landscape get smaller, the existence of English equivalents to local language names becomes less likely. It is sometimes customary, as with personal names, to transliterate these place names so that they are better understood by an English speaker. This is a practice that is losing favor to preserving local spelling to the extent possible.
My comment on the sentence I underlined: good, common sense prevails. Furthermore, I also wrote the following comment today: [1].
Your explanation above with regard to the Scottish, Irish, Welsh: you don't seem to appreciate that the English-language wikipedia crosses all language borders. People not as well educated as yourself and living elsewhere in the world do not see these as "English language" words. Alas, you made it many times more difficult to use Wikipedia. I would consider wikipedia educationally improving when you make it going the other way: use redirects to guide people that type a name in English to the local name. As, by the way, it is done in many other language versions of wikipedia, looking at the interwiki listings. Comparable to using the official name for trees and plants for example, take the hazelnut. I strongly disagree with your actions. Therefore I can and will not participate. --VanBurenen (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

National Express East Anglia[edit]

Hi, I saw your edit to National Express East Anglia [2], and I decided it should be reverted. I don't mean to destroy your hard work, it's just that it seemed like excessive detail to go in the article. Sorry, --RFBailey (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know a better place? --VanBurenen (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should join in this discussion that I've just started. --RFBailey (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. Please make sure you add categories only using wiki markup. See diff at alarm signal to see what I'm talking about. Richard001 (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Question: [3].

Greetings. It's a good question. There is correct and there is correct, which will differ according to the level of the person in question. What a teacher will consider "correct" for a 1 year student actually translates to what will allow the student to improve, but would be considered sloppy if not actually erroneous in a 10 year student. If the system you are learning is from a real lineage, there is no end to personal improvement, it can always get better as the years go by and your understanding grows.

Generally, taijiquan theory postulates a specific alignment of the spine added to a required mechanism for breathing ("qi"), which, if actually accomplished, will guarantee that the muscles and tendons will relax and then be able to stretch and move with remarkable stability, flexibility and speed on the skeletal frame; "single weighting". Diagnostically, if there is stiffness or tension anywhere in the musculature, "double weighting", then there will be a distortion in the alignment or irregularities in the breathing, somewhere, without fail.

This isn't unique to taijiquan. A good yoga teacher should be able to get a student there, too, one supposes. Where taijiquan (and xingyiquan and baguazhang that I know of) differ is in the method of turning up the heat on a student. Single weighting doesn't interfere with information coming to you from the outside the way a shell of tension in the musculature does, and ultimately gives you access to a leverage principle "moving through the joints" that can effectively protect you from an attack if you know how to use it. So, not only are you expected to maintain single weightedness in the calmness of a meditation hall with incense burning, but you are also expected to maintain that state doing a long, complicated, painfully slow form (an inventory of self defense techniques); then with someone shoving you; then with someone throwing you onto the floor; then with someone punching or kicking at you; and eventually with them trying to club or impale you with a spear or sword. Then add multiple assailants to those scenarios! If you can keep your calm jumping from those frying pans into ever hotter fires, then whatever you are doing has kung fu, and you will be able to transmit that hard won knowledge to another person.

In the Wikiquote tai chi chuan article there are several quotes by masters of the different taijiquan families where they talk about three levels of learning, which describe the process beginner - intermediate - advanced that is what I base my teaching on. It is interesting that there is agreement among the families, even though their forms look different. The Wu family teachers who taught me said that different forms are like an individual's handwriting. It may look very different to another's, but it can say the same thing regardless if it is intelligible. Cheers, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate very much this expanation. You mainly explain it from the point of view of the teacher who corrects a particular stance so the student will improve this stance. In the last paragraph you mention the differences in styles, and that " can say the same thing..." across family styles. For example the 'single whip' in Wu style is significantly different from the one in Yang style, but in either one works with the same principle: the ones you mention in the second paragraph above. Correct? However, let me ask the question in a slightly different way, and which I meant to ask: either single whip may be used in a martial application and then such a stance makes sense. To correct a student one may show the martial application over and over, to a beginning student or advanced. Therefore, one could say that the martial application is not only at the root of a move, but is also essential to keep the move correct. Without martial applications there would be no move. The puzzling question is, and it probably has been asked before, when a taiji form does not use martial applications (or qi applications) to clarify the moves in the form, how can it maintain a consistent quality when there are no criteria to measure against. I am talking about (in a single whip) why use a squat, and how you get to that squat and how you move away from it, why have the arms the way they are, and how did they get there and where are they going, and why make a 'birds beak' with one hand and not with the other, etc. --VanBurenen (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Very good, I'm glad it was helpful. Your question: "...when a taiji form does not use martial applications (or qi applications) to clarify the moves in the form, how can it maintain a consistent quality..." has a very direct answer; it can't. Without the proof in the pudding, without being tested by the hot water of physical aggression from an opponent, realistic aggression at that, not cooperative (cooperation is important for safety in earlier timing, coordination and positioning training, but as time goes on, you have to test your applications against a realistically uncooperative opponent or three to see if you get it). That is the only way to know how to get into, use and get out of a horse stance, for example, in Single Whip, a stance that provides stability in the throw or strike generated by the left hand over the left leg, and a lower centre of gravity so that it will be harder for the opponent to throw you. Another example, to explain why the Wu family uses 45 degree angles from the centreline in their forms while the Yang family uses 60 degree angles is that either the opponents are envisioned standing in different places relative to the starting position, or the potential throw will deposit them in a different place relative to the ending position. The end points of family forms are for training purposes, in a real fight you have to be more flexible and adaptable, a Wu stylist may step 120 degrees, a Yang stylist just 90. You may combine Single Whip with Repulse Monkey if needs be (for an elbow break, then a throw), you may indeed hook both hands to strike upwards in 2 directions, or break 2 wrists downward (another application of the bird's beak) on 1 or 2 opponents.
Freestyle pushing hands and sparring will give a student the experience to know how to do all that. A school teaching without a martial proving ground, in my opinion, and the opinion of most orthodox pracitioners from the family styles, isn't going anywhere. There may be some small health benefit as befits any exercise, but there just isn't a way to know if what they are doing is working the truly effective way it was designed to.
The following are various chapters from a text given to the Wu family by the Yangs 150 years ago:

14. An Explanation of the Spiritual and Martial in T'ai Chi

The spiritual is the essence, the martial is the application. Spiritual development in the realm of martial arts is applied through the ching (metabolic energy), ch'i (breath energy) and shen (spiritual energy) - the practise of physical culture. When the martial is matched with the spiritual and it is experienced in the body and mind, this then is the practise of martial arts. With the spiritual and martial we must speak of "firing time," for their development unfolds according to the proper sequence. This is the root of physical culture. Therefore, the practise of the martial arts in a spiritual way is soft-style exercise, the sinew power of ching, ch'i and shen. When the martial arts are practical in an exclusively martial way, this is hard style, or simply brute force. The spiritual without martial training is essence without application; the martial without spiritual accompaniment is application without essence. A lone pole cannot stand, a single palm cannot clap. This is not only true of physical culture and martial arts, but all things are subject to this principle. The spiritual is internal principle; the martial is external skill. External skill without internal principle is simply physical ferocity. This is a far cry from the original nature of the art, and by bullying an opponent one eventually invites disaster. To understand the internal principles without the external skill is simply an armchair art. Without knowing the applications, one will be lost in an actual confrontation. When it comes to applying this art, one cannot afford to ignore the significance of the two words: spiritual and martial.

19. An Explanation of the Three Levels of the Spiritual and Martial in T'ai Chi

Without self-cultivation, there would be no means of realising the Tao. Nevertheless, the methods of practise can be divided into three levels. The term level means attainment. The highest level is the great attainment; the lowest level is the lesser attainment; the middle level is the attainment of sincerity. Although the methods are divided into three levels of practise, the attainment is one. The spiritual is cultivated internally and the martial externally; physical culture is internal and martial arts external. Those whose practise is successful both internally and externally reach the highest level of attainment. Those who master the martial arts through the spiritual aspect of physical culture, and those who master the spiritual aspect of physical culture through the martial arts attain the middle level. However, those who know only physical culture but not the martial arts, or those who know only the martial arts without physical culture represent the lowest levels of attainment.

20. An Explanation of the Martial Aspect of T’ai Chi

As a martial art, T’ai Chi is externally a soft exercise, but internally hard, even as it seeks softness. If we are externally soft, after a long time we will naturally develop internal hardness. It’s not that we consciously cultivate hardness, for in reality our mind is on softness. What is difficult is to remain internally reserved, to possess hardness without expressing it, always externally meeting the opponent with softness. Meeting hardness with softness causes the opponent’s hardness to be transformed and disappear into nothingness. How can we acquire this skill? When we have mastered sticking, adhering, connecting and following, we will naturally progress from conscious movement to interpreting energy and finally spiritual illumination and the realm of absolute transcendence. If our skill has not reached absolute transcendence, how could we manifest the miracle of four ounces moving a thousand pounds? It is simply a matter of “understanding sticky movement” to the point of perfecting the subtlety of seeing and hearing.

Therefore, the manner in which taijiquan is executed is vitally important, it has to be done softly, with relaxation rather than aggression or brute force:

27. An Explanation of Strength and Ch’i in T’ai Chi

Ch’i travels in the membranes, bones, sinews and blood vessels; strength issues from the blood, flesh, skin and bones. Therefore, those with great brute force have external strength in their skin and bones, or physical form. Those with great ch’i have internal strength in their sinews and blood vessels, or physical image. The ch’i-blood expresses itself in internal strength; the blood-ch’i expresses itself in external strength. If you understand the function of ch’i and blood, you will naturally understand the source of strength and ch’i. If you understand the nature of ch’i and strength, you will naturally grasp the distinction between using strength and circulating ch’i. Circulating the ch’i in the sinews and blood vessels and using strength in the skin and bones are very different.

So you see, it is an invloved study. We don't use soft style martial art to dominate or intimidate people, or to win any competitions with others, but so that we ourselves will not be easily dominated or intimidated, and because according to the generations of pracitioners who have gone before us, it is the only way to know if what we are doing is actually safe for us, correct for leverage purposes and in accord with the precepts of those who developed the art in the first place. Whew! --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I very much appreciate the information and the time you have taken to place it here. I will need some time to digest this. Many thanks. --VanBurenen (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your question on Wood grain[edit]

Please do not use the article talk pages for asking knowledge questions or otherwise discussing the subject. That is why the reference desks have been set up. The article talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. If you want to see an answer to your question, keep the ref desk on your watchlist. SpinningSpark 23:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question on Papal Gentlemen[edit]

[4] Chamberlain is an old title given mostly to laypersons. Most if not all the people in the category held this position when it was called Chamberlain. The equivalent now is Papal Gentlemen; I suppose that creates a problem categorizing someone who held the position when called Gentlemen. Gimmetrow 03:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comb Overs[edit]

If you have citations for those additions than add them, otherwise they are original research. Remember WP is about what you can cite not what you know. Thanks. :) --Adam in MO Talk 04:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi VanBurenen,

I agree that "cake" is a better description than "bread" of what speculaas is. But the point is "bread" is a more faithful translation of the French text.

Also, the original editor chose "bread" and I agreed with him/her. I wasn't entirely comfortable with the change you made, so I reverted it. When you've made a change to a page and been reverted, the appropriate thing to do is to take the disagreement to the talk page of the article to try to reach agreement.

Since the translation was inserted only recently, I suppose the status quo is the absence of any translation. Therefore, I will remove the translation until something can be sorted out on the talk page of the article.

After that, we should see what the majority opinion is and go with that.

By the way, pain d'épice is called "gingerbread" in English. Joeldl (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, the quotation marks aren't worth arguing over. Joeldl (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Gingerbread, good point. --VanBurenen (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


I was indeed overzealous, and I will put the books back in. It was entirely arbitrary of me, but I hadn't had my coffee yet, I had just been looking over the Chee Soo article, and was ruminating on the general state of martial arts bios on WP, and that likely clouded my judgment. The books were listed without a bibliographical header, so I'll put them back in a new section. Thanks for bringing it up. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. The books as a stand alone list kind of implied article references, I suppose. Having the books in again under a header takes care of that. I have met Bruce before, and a few of his students, and know a bit about his history (again, like you say, from talking with them!). I will dig into my old stack of T'ai Chi magazines and see if I can find some articles about him (instead of by him) that we may be able to use for his article. Footnotes with a reflist should clear a nofootnotes template, so I've removed it. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross and Freedom of Mind R/S Issues[edit]

If you have time, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Freedom_of_Mind_page_on_Chung_Moo_Doe and Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for giving me a heads-up about the continuing "dutch adventure". hum.. and 'dutch adventure' - that sound like it should be more exciting than leaving a barnstar.Jon513 (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand - a Bamboo Leaf (Zhou Ye Shou Gong)[edit]

Are you familiar with the book Jin Jing Zhong (1934) 'Training Methods Of 72 Arts Of Shaolin'? Informed input would be useful<g>. jmcw (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

huifbedrijden / wagon-bed riding[edit]

Hallo vanBurenen,

Bijzonder bedankt voor de hulp en medewerking zover. Naast de Engelstalige versie ben ik ook een Duitstalige en Franstalige Wiki-pagina aan het maken. Ik zal deze zo goed mogelijk voorbereiden buiten Wikipedia en conformeren aan de opbouw van de Engelstalige, maar mijn Engels is redelijk, mijn Duits matig en mijn Frans minimaal. De tekst is gedaan door een hulpvaardig vertaal-bureau, dus dat scheelt.

Ronaldbuist (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi there. I came across a lot of articles today that featured "general consensus of opinion" or some variation on that theme. This drives me bonkers so I googled the whole site and found several hundred of the beasts. In the process, I found that you had asked about this previously at the Language desk (I found two threads where you inquired). I was wondering if you ever found either a bot or some such to stamp this monstrosity out. Of the bunch I found today, I've seen all of one where it would have been appropriate to leave it ("consensus of opinion but not of feeling"). Just curious. I can happily tackle it with my google search method. Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no memory on this issue. Can't find the entries either. Can't advise you on this at this time. Sorry. --VanBurenen (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries. It WAS a pretty old thread so I'm not sure why I thought you'd remember. Happy editing! Millahnna (mouse)talk 11:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


You might be pleased to know that the user you put me on to turned out to be one of several sockpuppets. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ramalha_Soares. Good catch! Wikipelli Talk 14:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Have a good weekend. --VanBurenen (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Question (moved)[edit]

Hi Van Burenen, I just want to say hi and say how fascinating I find your information on Moy Lin Shin and Liuhebafa..I have pr\actised it many years every day..I want to se a biography written on Mr Moy Lin Shin ans was hopeing you could give some name is kerrisma on wikipedia.. e mail addresss is I am legally blind and tend to make numerous typos...any guidance would be greatly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrisma (talkcontribs) 03:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

For your information:
--VanBurenen (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Just a note to say thank you for your comments on the Mechanical Advantage talk page. As you could see it took me a while to understand that Alok was just having fun and was not really interested in the subject. You can also see this in his contributions to other talk pages on other subjects. Again, thank you. Prof McCarthy (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


I have been updating the categories on pages that did not have a clear categorical structure. I have tried to do this without disrupting the existing structure, but I could have made mistakes. The structure I have added is simply Mechanical engineering, Machines, Kinematics, Mechanisms, Linkages. I believe this becomes controversial only in the cases of Virtual work and Work (physics). Please feel free to revert these changes, if I got it wrong. However, if you look at these articles you can see that they address and interesting range of areas from elementary physics to sophisticated mechanical engineering. I simply tried to use the existing hierarchical structure to capture this. Prof McCarthy (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I try to follow guidance from Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization. In any case is an article like Linkage (mechanical) at the bottom of the pile and one is first directed to the category Category:Linkages. --VanBurenen (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Some tweaking may be necessary, however, to place all subjects in the Category:Mechanical engineering is, for one, overloading that category and making it useless. That's why we have sub-categories. Also does Category:Kinematics fit very well as subset of Category:Mechanics thus the latter one does not need mentioning. This is how I understand the system. --VanBurenen (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

VanBurenen, if my attempt to categorize the articles that refer to machines and mechanisms bothers you, then I will leave it alone. I have found over the last year that Wikipedia is increasingly the first stop for my students interested in machines, and in my opinion the articles have been poorly written and poorly categorized. I do know know why you view my effort to improve the sparse and inconsistent listings of these categories to be chaotic and unmanageable. I believe those interested in machines and mechanisms deserve better, but I am not interested in arguing over it even in a friendly way. I made my changes to the categories because I thought it would help the reader. Prof McCarthy (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To keep the discussion in one place I replied on you talk page. --VanBurenen (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

one of the watermarked images nominated for deletion[edit]

One of those many watermarked images has been nominated for deletion. Thought you might be interested. – JBarta (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I pointed all deletion discussions regarding this uploader's files to one common request. – JBarta (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Late welcome[edit]

Hi VanBuren,

Puzzled by finding your welcome message on my talk page after having been editing/contributing for more than 4 years now.

RikSchuiling (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed your contribution in the article scree. Then noticed you had an empty talk page. Your contributions seem okay to me, so I wanted to thank you for that and did that with a welcome message. I hope it does not make you stop improving articles Face-smile.svg.--VanBuren (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Purdah (disambiguation)[edit]

The style was correct before your edit (MOS:DABPRIMARY). Regards Widefox; talk 07:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

En waar zijn wij mee bezig van Buren?[edit]

Leg eens uit, wat is dat voor gedoe? Lijkt dus helemaal nergens op. Graaf Statler (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)