User talk:Prinsgezinde

That was my bad. ack. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I knew you were doing it in good faith. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Prinsgezinde, I have the idea that your source somewhat conflates the Frisii of Roman days with the later Frisians. From Bremen to Bruges?? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hebel: Unlikely, since it describes them before the Common Era. It's also not very far from this. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes User:Prinsgezinde, that's exactly my worry. It does describe them before the common era and this is not about the Frisii but about the Frisians, which are two different concepts that (this is my impression) your source conflates into one. See also the last paragraph of the lead and the article by Bazelmans, quoted there. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image is about both the Frisians and the Frisii. It marks modern Friesland but the grey areas are of "historical Frisian (Frisii) settlement". I realize the term can be ambiguous, but you are assuming they were incorrect. The article so far only described them after the Roman invasions (a bit odd). May I ask why you find it impossible? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image is about the medieval Frisians and not about the Frisii. Including the grey area's. The grey area's depict the medieval domain inhabited by (medieval) Frisians. The Frisii (who disappeared from history during the Migration period at the end of antiquity) were never in the neighbourhood of Bremen or indeed Schleswig. Not the text at the top of the article that says: "This article is about the ancient tribe that lived in Frisia. For the modern people named after them, see Frisians". And I'm not sure that the source you provided, realizes that. Anyway, the article is not about the Frisians (who have their own article) but about the Frisii. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very aware of that. But what exactly is it that makes you doubt the scholars' accuracy? I'm not a historian, but I know a thing or two about the Germanic peoples and see no sign of such confusion. There were no Frisians back then so such a confusion also seems strange. Note that it does say along the North Sea. Nowhere is it claimed they were settled in all the land inbetween. And neither does it exclude other peoples having lived near them. In any case, I'd stick to the sources. WP:NOTTRUTH and all. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many sources state that the Frisii (of Roman times) actually disappeared from history and were replaced by another population altogether that are the ancestors of the modern Frisians. According to many sources these were two rather different populations although a small part of the original Frisii, may have stayed behind and intermixed with the new population, but this is not at all certain. This state of affairs, that is quoted by sources in the article, seems to be wholly ignored by the source you bring to the table now and that slightly worries me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hebel: That is, in my opinion, more a cultural thing. I'm not Frisian so I'm not aware, but the reason modern Frisians identify with them is that they still have a unique (though Dutchified) language and a long history of "being Fisian". It should also be noted that Caesar and Tacitus often made mistakes and generalizations (for example, Caesar's islands "that are cut off from the mainland by the high tide" were fictitious: Ambiorix lived in the neighborhood of modern Tongeren and Maastricht, and the only islands that fit the description are the Frisian islands, 300km away). Semantically speakimg, modern Egyptians are not the same as Ancient Egyptians and it's the same with the Greeks. As for the names often being confused, that's because translating "Frisii" will result in "Frisians" in English. It's the same with translating "Germani" to "Germans" and "Germania" to "Germany". It's woefully inaccurate but done so often that it's hard to keep track of. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikilinks archive is a primary source. Primary sources can appear at WP if they are supported by secondary sources. Per WP:VERIFY, WP editors are not to read and interpret original documentation (which emails from this archive clearly are). Secondary sources must have done the analysis we wish to report, and then we can report that secondary source, along with its primary source. To analyze and report from primary sources directly, is to perform WP:Original Research. Bottom line, only use the Wikilinks archive as a supporting reference, when it is cited by a secondary source whose content you wish to use. Direct use violates WP:V and WP:OR. Cheers. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Le Prof, sorry, I don't understand what you're referring to? Which article is this about? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Norse obviously, quite possibly the Basques. Tha IP is a sock of the blocked Til Eulenspiegel, a lover of most things fringe. I didn't revert you there although the first thing that turned up just now (after a lulu.com book) when I searched GBooks for "Phoenician discovery of the Americas" was Fritze calling it fringe.[1] I'm happy not to call it fringe but Fritze's comments about confusing Carthaginians with Phoenicians is worth mentioning. However, if you search for sources calling it pseudoscience or pseudohistory, you find quite a few.[2] Doug Weller talk 14:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, he's also the 71.IP you replied to here. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I assume you mean the IP that ranted about you on my TP, yeah I figured he had some experience on other accounts. Honestly my opinion isn't at all strong on this. But "fringe" gives me the image of a theory that, while most evidence points against it, people still passionately support and spread. This from what I've read seems much more like a hypothesis than a scientific theory. I am definitely not advocating it, if that's the impression I gave by that. Annoying in terms of sourcing are all the blog posts and personal websites that pop up when I try to find sources on it. By the way, I would not at all be opposed to mentioning that certain scholars consider it fringe. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After your edit on the EU talkpage (and yes I had seen the many many questions as well), I added a section to the Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions. Feel free to amend or change if you think I made mistakes. Arnoutf (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Arnoutf, I was also considering doing that but you beat me to it. Now to hope people will read it before asking it on the TP again. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for reverting you the first time without an explanation; that was a mistake.

"Mostly American and Hawaiian citizens" is the compromise arrived at to succinctly yet accurately describe the members of the Committee of Safety. As the Talk page discusses, the majority of the members was made up of American citizens; Thurston and Dole, the two key leaders, were native-born Hawaiian citizens; and there were some citizens of European countries. (One can't be "partly" a citizen of a country; it's all or nothing.) The article ought to explicitly state this in the body, but given its current more-or-less stub status this has not yet been done. Ylee (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

It may be my bad, but I don't find the mention of Hungary in the source ("The Meaning of Song") you gave for this change on the history of Yankee Doodle. On page 491 it lists only the other countries. Can you please clarify this?

Thx Winston (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Winston, it took me a bit to find it again but it was referenced by the citation at the end of the paragraph: Immortal songs of camp and field : the story of their inspiration, together with striking anecdotes connected with their history. It's on page 44 of the book, which can be read here. It was reported that when Lajos Kossuth went to the United States, the Hungarians with him recognized the tune and told a writer for the Boston Post. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the Boston Post article (if there is one). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's clear now. Interesting story, that of Kossuth & company. :) Winston (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! It must have been nice for them to recognize a national favourite so far from home. And you're welcome. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the Hungarian version lyrics, if there were any Hungarian lyric words with the song, may have been equally patriotic, but maybe not as farcical! A great tune with a great history. Being turned back against the British as it was, is a wonderful story of the then Evil Empire finally getting its "just deserts!" Scott P. (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After actually reading the article, my little theory just got blown out of the water. Apparently the "jaunty melody" seems to be a perpetual magnet for "jaunty words". (Also a means for bored soldiers to continually invent new ways to taunt one another during apparent spans of boredom.) Scott P. (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as seen in the article it was quite a jolly song used by (probably Low German/Saxon immigrant) farmers in the region of Holland. Indeed quite an odd origin for a war song. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Since you reviewed the Not My Presidents Day article for Good status, I wanted to let you know that I've co-nominated Impeachment March for Good status as well. I'm curious if you have any interest in reviewing this article, or even just participating in the ongoing merge discussion re: Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer:; I appreciate the request, but (also the reason for the late reply is) I'm unfortunately often occupied in my life now and have been far less active on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that any commitment would be hard to adhere to. I'll visit the discussion though. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, and visiting the discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You voted before on genderqueer. Do we always follow WP:UCRN when moving articles, or does possible offensiveness also play a role? Aren't arguments for moving genderqueer similar to arguments for moving sex reassignment surgery? 72.213.205.141 (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I don't even remember that one. But from what I can see it was a close call. Anyhow, in my experience there never is or was one policy/guideline that trumps all others. Common name is definitely one of the most important aspects. But if a name is clearly seen by the subject and a sizeable portion of society as offensive or 'wrong' in a way then it's unlikely to be the title, even if it's more common (see: Roma/gypsy). If a possibly offensive name is more common and not fully replaceable without losing scope, or if has no common alternate name, it may still be used (see: Eskimo). Wikipedia being inconsistent has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand it allows for each issue to be discussed rigorously and without compromise so people can't game the system, while on the other hand it can lead to a perceived unfairness or hypocrisy on our part by the reader. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for adding a tag to the Elsevier entry about the overly-long controversy section. I work for Elsevier's parent company so keep an eye on these pages and try to suggest improvements from time to time. I was hoping that your tag would help to get a more accurate and neutral page in the spirit of Wikipedia, but unfortunately there is a user who works for a competitor (presumably WP:COI?) who is still adding anything he can find which is anti-Elsevier, making the page less-balanced all the time. Do you have any suggestions on how to get any editors to respond to your tag, as they seem to be ignoring it? Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoba: Competitors dueling on Wikipedia sounds pretty worrying but I honestly wouldn't even know who Elsevier's competitors are. While you yourself also fall under WP:COI, I can see you've been disclosing it properly. You can try going to one of the noticeboards but I don't see much else that can be done except raising the issue on its talk page. The criticism section mostly violates WP:NPOV so that noticeboard would be your best bet. Unless the user straight up discloses it himself, the COI noticeboard isn't the right one. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prinsgezinde. To answer your question: no. It was probably written by a Spaniard/Catalan. It is common practice to use the future tense in those languages. Scolaire (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that would explain it. It's common to see "will" used incorrectly when users write about something in 2014 in 2013 or some such, but I couldn't figure out what happened here. Worst case scenario was that it had been copied word-for-word from an actual 1933 source. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That was quick. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, when undoing edits, please take a few seconds and see what you're undoing. LionMans Account (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I immediately went to the page following my reversion to double-check what was going on and noticed the problem. The IP could have ideally provided an edit summary but in any case they were in the right. User:Hummerrocket solved it shortly after. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature now fully changed to "Prinsgezinde" so as to be consistent with my username and possibly avoid confusion. I don't know why it took me this long to do so. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prinsgezinde, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

I was just wondering why you removed my edits to the Paddington Bear article?

The concept that Paddigton Bear was a soviet era cutout included citations and an image as evidence. The theory has been around for a long time but doesn't appear to be part of the wikipedia page. I was just wondering why you took it upon yourself to remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpyBear (talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because, SpyBear, you didn't provide any references. I had a quick look on Google and found no "controversy" or even allegations of the sort. The story is fictional; you drew your own conclusions instead of writing what the sources say. I was unsure of whether it was a joke edit, vandalism or an opinion, so I assumed good faith and merely reverted. The image you added and created did not support your claims and appears to have been drawn on with red marker (even if it wasn't, this doesn't suggest an assassination plot on the queen). You may have attempted to write a source but only added an empty "citebook" here. Please see WP:CITE for information on how to cite sources. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image is taken from the book!

Do you want me to cite the book so you can look at the image?!?

Also - you suggest your research is based on "A quick look on Google" Holy moly - that's the level of your research?!?!

I'm speechless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpyBear (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpyBear, please sign your posts by including "~~~~" at the end. As I've said earlier, it doesn't matter whether the red cross in the image was added or not. It's original research either way to claim it has something to do with an assassination plot on the queen. The burden of proof is on the editor including the dubious material, not the reader. This is only a problem if, as I fear, you do not have any sources to support your edits. If you do, please provide them and there will be no more issues. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. List of best-selling girl groups was protected due to persistent unsourced changes by IP/new editors. Please do not accept such unsourced pending changes. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bennv3771, sorry if I accepted something inaccurate but I did this in accordance with the page Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. "The purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection, (...). A reviewer only ensures that the changes introduced to the article are broadly acceptable for viewing by a casual reader." Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page was protected due to the persistent addition of unsourced changes, hence accepting unsourced changes is "obviously inappropriate edits". As Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes says: "Furthermore, reviewers should take special consideration of the reason given for protection, and attempt to uphold it." Bennv3771 (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you are referring to this particular article and others with the same problem, right? I first understood this as you saying unsourced edits should never be accepted, which would cut about 95% of them. In this case I thought the fact that it was linked and thus verifiable was enough, but I acknowledge the mistake. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes says: "In ambiguous cases, reverting is not the default option; you should properly investigate the case or leave it for a second opinion." Hence, you should at least check if the claim is verified in the link to ensure that it isn't sneaky vandalism, which occurs persistently on this article and many others. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning but what threw me off was the title you chose, as in that no unsourced pending changes may be accepted. The page states: "If no source is provided, you may search for one and if none is straightforward but there are no reasonable reasons to believe the new edit is vandalism, it is acceptable, but if on balance you estimate that the edit is more likely to be vandalism, you should not accept and may revert." Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prinsgezinde,you again reverted the paragraph, "Leftists suffered a high death toll. The Spanish intelligentsia and atheists were also targeted for liquidation, as well as military and government figures who had remained loyal to the Madrid government during the civil war." The first sentence of the paragraph is rather meaningless, how is "high death toll" anywhere defined for this sentence or otherwise found in your paragraph? High death toll can mean anything, other contributors state number estimates for post Civil War executions supported by reference to works or writings of widely known and respected historians. For the second sentence of your paragraph you write, "Spanish intelligentsia and atheists were also targeted for liquidation." Where is the authority for this statement? In all of my years of studying Spanish history, I know of no authority for this statement nor do you cite one. This paragraph contributes nothing to the article. Wikipedia should not simply express opinions or "beliefs" of its contributors.

Spain had no "Fascist Party" per se but instead the "Falange Española," more Catholic and conservative than anything else. The word "fascist" is quite charged, the party merged into the Movement was the "Falange Española," not the "fascist party."

And, I will be shocked to learn if you have never heard of Stanley Payne?

I invite your reply.

User:199.227.97.254, hi. Please sign your posts with "~~~~". Anyway, that was actually the first time I reverted you. Your edits to the article were previously reverted or undone by 3 different editors (see here, here, here—actually more than once by two of them), yet you kept inserting your own version. This is called edit warring and, even if someone is "right", is still not the right way to go about things. I didn't write any of the stuff from my edit, all of that was material you removed. The reason I reverted all your changes (including additions) is because you failed to discuss any of them and simply kept making the same changes. Leaving any of it in before you discuss them as some sort of compromise would be rewarding this practice. Individually they may be fine. If you had just inserted the Stanley Payne ref in its appropriate spot in the body, worded neutrally, there would have been no problem. Large and likely to be contentious deletions and changes in the lead of a prominent article should to be discussed on the talk page, especially if you've been reverted. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was Attic Salt and not Asqueladd who reverted my change from "fascists" to "Falange Espanola" for the sentence, "In April 1937, Franco merged the fascist and traditionalist political parties in the rebel zone, as well as other conservative and monarchist elements, into FET y de las JONS, outlawing the rest of political parties and thus Spain became a one-party state."

My problem is with using the generic word "fascist" rather than the party's correct name, "Falange Espanola." Manalojo may have the same objection. To conflate FE with Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party or Mussolini's Partito Nazionale Fascista creates only confusion. My suggestion is instead, since FE was uniquely Spanish, for greater precision to use the party's name in the sentence instead of the charged word "fascist," and of course link FE to its page so the reader can see for himself how different this party was from in particular the National Socialist German Workers' Party. All historians agree FE represented a unique brand of "Spanish Catholic authoritarianism," to conflate, even inadvertently, FE with Hitler's neo-paganism and racism is a disservice to the reader.

I also added for my original revision "thus Spain became a nominally one-party state." Manuel Fraga claimed even Franco at times treated El Movimiento as a joke. But, if you really object to "nominally" I have no problem with its removal.

I would like to work with for an agreed amended version for the sentence in question. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

199.227.97.254, please do realize that I did not revert you because I didn't "like" your edits or because I thought they were all inaccurate, I reverted you because you kept pushing them after having been reverted by others multiple times. This is a controversial article. What that means for contributors is that they have to be willing to discuss their edits with other contributors who might disagree. Engaging in conversation with the users involved is a good start, but you shouldn't direct your arguments against just one. Is it okay with you if I move this disussion to Franco's talk page so other editors can take part? Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Prinsgezinde, but I already have the above comments on the Franco talk page. And, when I first made edits for the Franco page I knew quite well he remains one of the most controversial political figures of the 20th Century. I have appreciated your advices for the Franco page and explanations for Wikipedia proper editing protocol. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prinsgezinde, I am beginning to wonder as to whether Franco may be a topic just too controversial for a format like Wikipedia? In regard to Guernica, it would appear a consensus of Thomas, Payne & even Preston as to Franco having not ordered or requested the attack is not enough for some. In many ways the Franco page is more of a "polemic" than an encyclopedia entry.199.227.97.254 (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

199.227.97.254, I can tell you that there are far more controversial articles on Wikipedia (Israeli-Arab conflict, Russia and Crimea, Trump etc.) that also have disputes on what is true. However, judging, from the discussion on the Franco page, I don't think there is a consensus. I would really advise trying to work well with editors. These pages go through countless proposals and discussions, so this very issue has likely been addressed before. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the revised sentence for present - "It is disputed among historians whether Franco personally ordered, requested or knew of beforehand the German and Italian aerial bombing of Guernica in 1937." - will serve as a consensus among the editors for this question. No one should be dismissive of the conclusions of Hugh Thomas or Stanley Payne as to any question for Spanish Civil War history.

Your advises continue to be appreciated for Wikipedia editing. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if you have a piece of information you think could be agreed upon as constituting an academic consensus (and providing you can back it up with sources and reasonable arguments etc.) but the discussions on said talk page aren't going anywhere, you can try a request for comments. Still, this could just as well rule against you and would still partly involve the same editors. Let me caution you first of all that if you start 3-4 sections in close succession and then a form of dispute resolution, other users could see this as disruptive and/or tendentious. These articles attract a lot of new contributors who want to right great wrongs. Proving you are not in this category can be done by constructively raising points on the talk page without pushing for immediate changes, and by dropping points that repeatedly fail to convince all other involved editors. If you want to focus on a specific element of the article that you truly think is misrepresented, make sure you address any counter-arguments raised by other editors. For example: if someone questions whether an expert said something, provide a clear quote instead of telling others to read their work. If you can't find a clear quote, concede and take it into account. Provide multiple sources and attest to their reliability. Good luck, and happy editing. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prinsgezinde: Someone under the screen name of ShuffleboardJerk reverted my revisions and has made a threat to block me. Did ShuffleboardJerk read the Francisco Franco talk page before undoing my revisions? These revisions were only made after much discussion on the Franco talk page (my last revision proposal was on the talk page for a couple of days, I only edited it this morning because I somehow forget to sign the proposed revision). Please check the talk page. Hasn't ShuffleboardJerk made 7 reversions in one day for this page in contravention of Wikipedia rules? - "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period."

I have asked ShuffleboardJerk to undo his revisions. Should I become a registered user now? I am not and will never be a full time reviser of Wikipedia like Asqueladd or Binksternet. And, my revisions were not reverted by anyone I have dialogued with on the Franco talk page. ShuffleboardJerk has never dialogued on the Franco discussion page. There is no authority for 400,000 post-CW executions and prisoners "worked to death," and it would seem the talk page participants now all agree to this point, just as they finally agreed to at least say it is disputed Franco ordered Guernica since both Thomas and Payne say otherwise and even Preston finds no evidence of his knowledge beforehand.

Your advises will be appreciated, and I write to you from New Orleans, like much of the Netherlands also below sea level.199.227.97.254 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor used a tool that cycles through recent edits by IPs and new accounts to quickly undo vandalism or unwanted changes. Undoing 7 edits in a row by one editor counts as one revert. Otherwise someone could just distribute their wanted edit over 10 smaller edits to avoid reversion. Yours appeared to them as a large removal of sourced content, exactly like the ones I reverted and warned you about before. He remarked on your talk page that you removed information that properly cited 5 different sources. Because you already got two warnings on your talk page (a soft warning from me and a second warning from Binksternet), you probably automatically received a stronger warning this time. And yes, it means you run a serious risk of getting temporarily banned if you make the same kind of edits again. While you started discussions on the TP, you didn't establish any consensus and made the exact same changes as before. Honestly, if you're here to improve Wikipedia in general instead of just Franco-related material, I would advise you to avoid that page. Create an account if you intend to edit more in the future; it's a sign that someone is prepared to put some effort into it. I hope you did learn the vital lesson that you should not remove sourced content and/or sources unless there is something demonstrably wrong with the sources (see WP:RS). Greyer cases occur when the sources are inadequate or sourced content is given undue weight, but it's better to get a lot more experience before getting into any of that. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The warning from Binksternet concerned a date of birth entry for Cecilia Vega, a correspondent of ABC News; apparently Binksternet is researching other edits I did on other pages and that was the only thing he could find that is unsatisfactory. I then cited an additional authority for Vega's birth but Binksternet still found the same unsatisfactory. For the Franco article my only deletion was for one sentence and I did research the sources none of which anywhere claim 400,000 post-CW executions or people worked to death for forced labor. I thought Asqueladd and I agreed the 400,000 number is incorrect and he proposed a substitution sentence. I am presently talking to Asqueladd again about this sentence; no other editor seems interested in discussing the page? The sentence I deleted is very poorly worded and if proposed for any academic work or perhaps an encyclopedia like Britannica would be promptly rejected. Since the sentence stating Franco personally ordered the bombing of Guernica apparently went unchallenged for years, I wonder of the level of scholarship of those editing this page, or is it they just have an "agenda" to vilify the subject? A modicum of research would have disabused one of the contention Franco ordered or "personally requested" the bombing of Guernica. That being said, I intend only to again work with Asqueladd to correct the 400,000 number post-CW estimate for executions and prisoner work deaths and "tweak" the sentence concerning the merger of the Falange and Carlists and then I am done with this page. Wikipedia may simply be the wrong forum for a subject as contested and controversial as Francisco Franco. I believe the overall article is not well done and justly deserves it C-Class rating.

All of that being said, I remain appreciative of your advises. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were some other minor changes in wording that I don't really understand, but you did indeed not remove anything else this time. Still, you should know that a TP discussion between two editors does not constitute consensus. The problems that caused the challenge in the first place need to be addressed. How many editors do you need for "concensus"? Depends on the article traffic. This article is busy enough for it not to be a problem. The thing is, you've started 3 sections that are each already quite sizeable. Most editors don't want to spend so much time on one single article, so they won't likely engage in a discussion that they feel will take a lot of time when they've already made their point clear. Note that that doesn't mean you get to make your edits anyway. Try to be more concise on article talk pages and of course be patient. You seem intent on removing the mention of his victims, which is probably not going to happen. The sources provided are reliable and the fact that specific sources don't mention it doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

400,000 post-CW dead from executions and forced work is not supported for any cited source for the sentence in question. It is truly sad such a sentence remains on the Franco article page. And, notice how ambiguous the sentence is when stating, "the repression and deaths of as many as 400,000 political opponents and dissenters through the use of forced labor and executions in the concentration camps his regime operated"? Conflating "repression and deaths" is the problem for this sentence. Apparently it is much easier to post a misleading, confusing and poorly worded sentence on a Wikipedia page than it is to delete one. At least my talk section on the bombing of Guernica did lead to an amendment of the sentence at issue to say authorities are in dispute for this question. The original sentence unquestioningly stating Franco requested the bombing of Guernica was an egregious disservice to the reader. I am the product of a tradition of scholarship that demands and far exceeds what is acceptable for Wikipedia for sourcing and clarity of content for a biographical article of this kind.

I will try to be more patient for correcting the remaining concerns I have for this page. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove these red links? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harborfields_High_School&diff=848944791&oldid=848943576

They serve the purpose of red links. "It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that ... an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. A study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow."

See Wikipedia:Red link.

It goes on to caution: "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic".

--2604:2000:E010:1100:F06C:39BF:81A4:1726 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I assumed you were a new IP editor and simply added them because all the other names were linked, and didn't understand why these two weren't. You only said "add ce" in your edit summary, which didn't tell me you were planning on making these articles or wanted to vouch for the chance they could be made in the near future. "Creating a red link also carries the responsibility ... that its foreseeable new subject matter will meet the notability guidelines for topics covering: people (WP:BIO), web content (WP:WEB), businesses (WP:CORP), and more." Looking at the two, Bill Daye could probably get an article (here and here), but I don't know about Ken Cresswell. I don't see secondary/tertiary sources about him. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will defer to you on that one not being notable. Then he should not be on the list. So I have struck him. I assume that Daye should be redlinked whether it is done by an IP or by a non IP and whether the editor is new or old. The standard of notability should be the same. 2604:2000:E010:1100:F06C:39BF:81A4:1726 (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, he probably shouldn't be, but deleting the name entirely was stronger than just removing the redlink. I redlinked Daye. And in theory it should be the same, yes, but when I see a dynamic IP I assume they haven't read every guideline. It's a generalization, of course, but it's from some experience unfortunately. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Such lists are for "Notable alumni" where "notable" is commonly defined as "having a Wikipedia article". Without an article, an entry would need all kinds of references (lest there be a BLP violation). If someone wants them listed, let them write the article. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that ""notable" is commonly defined as "having a Wikipedia article"" being other than a personal view. Some I guess have shared it for years, and others have disagreed with it .. I see this. Wikipedia talk:Notable alumni 2604:2000:E010:1100:2D1B:C77B:98E:5380 (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page you point to is completely inactive and contains discussion from 12 years ago. WP:ALUMNI represents the current consensus for inclusion of names in alumni sections.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that it's pointless to include "Notable alumni" unless an editor is planning to make an article for them. But like I said, if you want Bill Daye in there, make an article for him. I've already given two WP:RS (and there are several others) that would establish his notability. I don't know much about the man, the sport or athlete BIO articles myself. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about reverting your edit on the Barter article. "Different" editors have been adding the same content to this and similar articles. I have seen it and reverted it so many times, that I think I am going crazy - and failed to recognise when someone else was actually reverting it. You have my apologies and my thanks for deleting this troubling content. BronHiggs (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that was the case, no worries. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Valeriepieris circle.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Really interesting. Thanks for this.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, To the best of my abilities of researching here, I believe that you ( I may be wrong) did the edit that removed my listing under "Notable" on the Harborfields high school page.

 * Ken Cresswell, professional polo player; member of 1992 U.S. FIP World Polo Team; United States Polo Association; certified polo instructor[1][2][3] 

Not being a Wikipediea guru I would ask that this be undone. Also adding better information. For instance https://www.uspolo.org/news-social/news/professional-polo-clinics-and-arena-polo-in-aiken-south-carolina

I do have a website , but I need to check an issue with it.

I am the ONLY professional polo player to come from the school. I have played in international tournaments, representing the US in the FIP in 1992. I recently ran the first polo game in Turks Caicos. I started the first Arena polo club in South Carolina ,FireStar Polo club.

I believe that my history and notability in this unique sport/business are certainly worthy of being "Notable". You can even google "Ken Cresswell Polo"

Any help would be appreciated . I can best be contacted at flatoutfarm@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polodude10 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Polodude10:Hello Ken, I wasn't actually the one who removed your name from the article. I only reverted an edit in which a red link was improperly applied to your name by an anonymous user, and this same user then apparently changed their mind and deleted your name entirely. Still, since your name was added 6 years ago the article has been placed under pending page protection (also due to conflicts in the "Notable alumni" section), so a higher level of scrutiny has come to be applied. Another redlinked name was removed right after yours was. Names without articles attached to them always run the risk of being removed from notability lists. You could try requesting an article. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prinsgezinde Thank you for the rapid reply. Would it be posssible to work with you to get myself back into to the listing? My website will be back up today. I can provide multiple external articles and refernces. If not could you reccomend an editor who could? Polodude10 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Polodude10: Apologies for being later this time, Easter tends to be busier. I'm sorry to say that I don't think I can help you. If I reinstate your name now, it will be because you asked me to and not because I questioned their judgment. That consitutes a conflict of interest. Normally this kind of thing would be discussed on the talk page of the article but I doubt it has enough traffic for that. If you want the opinion or advice of other editors you could try asking for editor assistance here. Make sure to read the rules at the top of the page and don't include your email address (it's one of the rules).

PS: Please don't add yourself or have acquaintances try to add you. This also constitutes a conflict of interest. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit on Pikachu? I put its classification so it should not be that much, right? UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it was a combination of the following two things:

• You made several spelling and grammar mistakes.
• The next sentence already called them "yellow rodent-like creatures". It seemed a bit redundant to note that their category is "mouse Pokémon".

Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I get that there was a sentence stating their appearance but its literally stated in the Pokedex as the mouse Pokemon so isn't it proved? UB Blacephalon (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether it's true in this case, it's about whether it's encyclopedic, relevant and well formulated. This is the lead section of a major article so there are some higher standards. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and greetings,

I was just browsing through article Historical negationism to see who can help me out in my couple of articles of interest. I am looking for some help @:

1) Bias in education to add summary of Historical negationism#In textbooks

2.1) I initiated Draft:Turkish textbook controversies, where in I have copy pasted from Historical negationism#Turkey a section probably added by you, I am looking for help in further expansion of Draft:Turkish textbook controversies

2.2) While searching I realized that there are good number of interesting sources on textbook coverage of Ottoman times by erstwhile Ottoman enslaved nations and now independent, So I am looking for en edit partner for some Draft like Draft:Coverage of Ottoman empire by text books other than Turkey

3) I am looking for help in identifying corroborating ref for Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları#Partisan coverage of slavery in modern Turkish textbooks

4) Also some help in expanding Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları an article that focuses on slavery of 'common women' in Ottoman times.

Last but not least please let me know if you can take a translation request for translating an article regarding women's right to Dutch language

Please do support in article expansion if any of interests you. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bookku, this is a very interesting effort. I do have to say that I mostly don't write large portions of text anymore like I used to and am less involved with Wikipedia in general. Still, those two drafts looks very promising. I'll definitely do some research and look into contributing to them. Regarding your last point, do you mean translate from Dutch or to Dutch? I'm confused as to why it would need to be translated to Dutch. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prinsgezinde: Thanks for your encouraging response.

2) I was looking for translation of two women's rights related articles from From English Wikipedia to Dutch Wikipedia. 1) Kithaab (It's already got translated in at least few prominent language Wikipedias) the second is My body, my choice a feminist slogan; in fact, in case, if you couldn't spare time for translating them then just pass on the request to few women editors on Dutch Wikipedia on my behalf.

1) One more request to you about George of Hungary, unlike slave accounts of American slavery, slave accounts of ottoman slaves seem largely missing; George of Hungary was one of those early Ottoman slave escapee who could successfully escape and wrote his slave account probably in Latin. Since you know Latin, if you get access to his account, may be, pl. help out if he has written any account of Ottoman female slavery, which may help updating . Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları .

There are no hard and fast time schedule for any of my request whenever your spare time permits you in due course time you can help me out in my requests.

Many thanks again, warm regards and greetings for upcoming festive celebrations. Bookku (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prins van Oranje 18:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My liege! Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your bold edits on Time Cube. I sympathize with the editors who want to catalog the minutiae of one of these seminal topics of online pop culture, but that sort of reference-free speculation underpinning an entire section of the article—editors trying to WP:OR-detective up a cause of death without any secondary reference establishing the person's even relevant!—called for a bold response. I appreciate it. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe I never responded to this. I completely agree with you. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is... Irrelevant controversy, which was started as an attempt at gaining attention and ruining his career. This has no place in the article, especially considering it was false allegations in the first place. Also, I have tried to start a discussion on this already and no one has bothered to reply.

What you stated can be used vice versa; do not add content that you think should be allowed. EthanRossie2000 11:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EthanRossie2000 The entire paragraph states like 3-4 times that it was false, no evidence, that it was retracted etc. It was still big news that deserves a mention. The point is, don't delete sourced material that has been discussed before without some form of consensus, especially if others have challenged you as well. In case it needs to be said, none of those IPs who reverted you were me. I just checked the TP and only saw one comment by you in an old discussion. Several people have raised the issue but they simply stopped responding after being told it's supported by reliable sources. If you're the IP 2603:8001..., start a discussion about the removal and ping the editors involved. I just don't see the point though. How can anyone read that section and believe he's guilty? You seem to want to defend him but omitting it entirely looks a hell of a lot worse than saying "someone made a claim but there was no evidence and it was later retracted". Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Colоur and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 14#Colоur until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —2001:16A2:E950:3402:C81D:4875:469A:C09A (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit at Suicidal ideation. Yours was an improvement, but in this case, "commit" is even better, because the existing source clearly says that, and the person who changed it to their preferred wording probably didn't look, and didn't care about sources. It's a contentious wording issue, but when the sources are with you, you needn't shy from following them, even if there are some RGW-warriors out there who don't care much about little details like sources, and hide behind opaque edit summaries to hide what they're actually up to. Thanks again for your contributions, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I certainly won't disagree. I find "die by suicide" to be an awkward euphemism that becomes all the more confounding in a phrase like "planning to die by suicide". Thank you for reminding me that we shouldn't editing fatigue lower our standards. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Eye of newt has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Eye of newt until a consensus is reached. This, that and the other (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]