User talk:Robotje

Welcome!

Hello, Robotje, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lst 27 23:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Luigi Waites

21:49, 20 February 2007 Robotje (Talk | contribs) (image)
18:35, 13 June 2007 Howcheng (Talk | contribs) m (1,930 bytes) ("image for deletion")

If that's a bit too much shorthand:
On 20 Feb you put a picture of Luigi on the Luigi Waites page.
In case you hadn't noticed, on 13 June Howcheng marked it as "image for deletion".
i.e. "The image above is proposed for deletion. See "images and media for deletion" to help reach a consensus on what to do."

Please visit the Luigi Waites and image-for-deletion pages and see if you can satisfy Howcheng's requirements, and thus stop the deletion process.

Thanks, Pdfpdf 01:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See answer on your talk page. - Robotje 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I guess it's out of our hands. Let's hope "Chris73" does "the right thing" and is successful. Pdfpdf 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. - Robotje 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East718 Q

East is on longterm wikibreak. On the Template Talk page (which shouldn't be protected), drop in {{editprotected}} with the error to be corrected. Then sit back and wait. There is a mini-backlog at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, but it should be done soon. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Vereniging_Basisinkomen. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First you are not a sysop so you are not able to blcok anybody here. Second, if you are in a conflict with other wikipedians, giving them warnings like you did now to me and a few days ago to another logged in user [1] is not a way to convince them. Use arguments not threads. Third, in the comment you wrote under my edit you are here complaining about, you stated my text contains false information without specifying what is false. Please specify or don't claim the comment of another user to be false. - Robotje (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Types of unemployment. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robotje is also behaving aggressive on the last page I have put on this site about Adrianus Johannes Lemmens. The problem is that he does not read the References, Sources and Links before he starts to criticise and makes negative and unintelligent comments which he has been used to on the Dutch Wikipedia where he comes from - as Cyber Bullying - is very very common there. What he does not realise is that Cyber bullying is an offence in Britain and he could get Scotland yard on his neck, but that is ultemately his decision. Several people on the Dutch Wikipedia (including myself and Menke) have therefore stopped contributing there but people like Robotje seem to follow us and seem to have fun undermining our work here !Glemmens1940 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A request for the arbcom to examine the Guideo den Broeder situation

G'day - I'm dropping this note in to you because earlier today I responded to a request to file a request for arbitration. My examination of events led me to believe that there may be some use in the arbcom examining this matter, and perchance resolving an issue or two, and you have been named as an 'Involved Party'. As such, your thoughts would be most welcome at the Request page.

Yours rather nervously to be wearing a clerk-ish hat for the first time,

PM - Privatemusings (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case has been rejected a few days ago (see [2]) while I was on holiday, so there is no need for me to comment on it anymore. Thanks for informing me anyway. - Robotje (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to History of Trams. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. This regards also implication to articles Light rail as well as Transport in the Netherlands and HTM Personenvervoer, etc. See AN3RR for admin rejection too.
D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please first read WP:COI before you reinsert in articles references to your own work. Removing self-references you keep reinserting cannot hardly be seen as vandalism, especially because you are also violating the WP:3RR while adding that kind of references in stead of using the talk pages to convince others these references are important. These violations by you have been reported and the admin who looked at the report wrote "If the user resumes edit warring, he'll be blocked." [3] - Robotje (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After half a year now, you should meanwhile clearly understand that this reference written primarely by mr.Dr. Ploeger, because the very source quoting from my manyfold archived publications, of which it is still only a compilation. Yours sincerely D.A. Borgdorff MASc IEEE = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought: I had drawn your attention by warning in time. D.A. Borgdorff etc. = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an anonymous user you are not in a position to give me warnings. On the contrary, an admin has informed you yesterday that if you continue edit warring you will be blocked. Hiding evidence by 3 times within 30 minutes removing my edit proving you were again violating the 3RR is yet another prove of edit warring on your site. Besides, if the book is primarely written by Ploeger, why were your first 3 edits after you wrote that on my page, reinsertions of references to that book with only your name? Please read WP:COI and WP:3RR carefully. - Robotje (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you before: You are no more worth than anybody else, certainly not here, because you're not an admin. Further - if you're able to read well - you could follow that I'm the writer and mr.dr. Ploeger co-author only as editor in collaboration. For the moment I've nothing more to clarify the situation. Usual D.A. Borgdorff MSEE FRIEN 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you first write " .. this reference written primarely by mr.Dr. Ploeger .. " and now you write about the same book " .. if you're able to read well - you could follow that I'm the writer and mr.dr. Ploeger co-author only as editor in collaboration." And then you think I have a problem with reading.

As for being more, I never wrote I am worth more so please give me the quote where I did so or stop suggesting I did so. Besides, I didn't give you a warning on this Wikipedia, you did. And that warning was for supposed vandalism. Well, the same admin who blocked you for the period of 1 month also reverted your last edit in 4 of the 5 articles you were constantly re-inserting a self-reference to your book (the 5th article with your last self reference was already reverted by another user):

Are you giving this admin also a warning for vandalism? Your were unblocked under strict conditions as the unblocking admin wrote:

"As blocking admin, I am going to unblock you on the promise that you are going to make your case on appropriate talkpages, waiting for consensus there, and trying to work together with the editors who oppose your edits (and please try to speak in English, not many of us do understand Latin, and that behavious, generally, does not help your arguments). Please have a look at the conflict of interest guideline on this wiki, which gives some information on how to handle these situations." [4]

The link he gave points to the same page I gave a link to: WP:COI. If you had studied that page before undoing my reverts you wouldn't have been blocked. Together with the warning you also advised me to use the sandbox by writing: "If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. My first edit on the English Wikipedia as user Robotje was on 3 September 2004 and starting from that moment I have done 3854 edits of which 87% in the article name space. On the Dutch Wikipedia which is also your main Wikipedia-project I have done 53214 edits so it's obvious you don't need to advice me to use the sandbox for experimenting. Your first edit here was less than a year ago and only 20% of your edits 767 edits on the English Wikipedia were in the article name space and a lot of them were for inserting your name in those 4 articles. On the Dutch Wikipedia it's even worse with only 15% of the edits in the article name space. So it would be better for you and Wikipedia to stop giving warnings, arguing with others, or making countless minor edits on your old comments and instead improve the articles on this Wikipedia while respecting the local rules like WP:COI and WP:3RR. - Robotje (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As explained many times: there is nó selfrefence, because there is no other one possible in this field of profession. Much debating here about those refs, also understood by said admin, in contrary to your statements which I still do respect, but not so to agree with, as you probably do understand as well. So: dear Robotje, I'll remain yours et cetera: D.A. Borgdorff - MASc.EE PEng, by: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Borgdorff - Robotje behaves in the same aggressive manner on the last page I have just put on this web Adrianus Johannes Lemmens . He does not resd the Reference, Links and Sources it seems at all but immediately starts with his negative and unintelligent comments and if he can not win the arguments he get his Dutch bullies - like The Banner - to help him. I feel sorry for those people- they seem so frustrated . What I would like to know is how many pages Robotje has put himself on this English Wikipedia ??? None ??? Glemmens1940 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Removing evidence of new 3RR violation

Thanks for letting me know. By the time I read the message, he had already been blocked, and is blocked for 1 month. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me and let's hope the user will learn from this block. - Robotje (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.83.155.44

OK, I did have a thorough second look, as I do not like the situation that is there with this user at all

First, our conflict of interest guideline (guideline, not policy) states:

COI editing is strongly discouraged.

Strongly discouraged, not forbidden.

User:86.83.155.44 seems to be D. A. Borgdorff. And indeed in this series of edits a sentence and a reference to apparently their own work is introduced. That was on September 7, 2008.

Now I am not knowledgeable enough in this subject to see if the reference is actually covering the sentence added, and if it is an appropriate reference. I do think it should be formatted in a different way, but that is a different question.

On July 29, 2008, more than 10 months and approx 400 edits later, you remove the reference, without reason, comment or discussion, leaving the sentence unreferenced. I am sorry, but that to me is not a correct way of handling this situation.

When the edit gets reinstated by 86.83.155.44, it gets removed by User:Erik Baas, again without reason, comment or discussion. When 86.83.155.44 rereverts that, you come to me.

Somewhere I saw a list of blocks for this user on different wikipedia. All for not discussing. But I do also see that in many of these cases I do see that this user is problematic, and I do think that a bit more social skill would help. But I am, as I said above, absolutely not happy that this, it looks to me like wikistalking, and although it is maybe self-promoting, your unexplained removal of a reference without explanation is here explainable as vandalism.

I would like to hear your side of this, and I may invite User:Erik Baas to this discussion as well. In all cases, I would like to invite all three of you to discuss the edits. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user with IP address 86.83.155.44 (known on the Dutch Wikipedia as dAb) has been adding references to his books in more than 20 and maybe even more than 30 articles Wikipedia-wide; on the English Wikipedia alone he added these in at least 8 different articles. On the Japanese Wikipedia I'm already for several months waiting for his reply on specific questions about the self references he made there. On the Spanish Wikipedia he refused to answer my question about why his Dutch translation of a French document that is hardly on topic for the article was relevant to the Spanish readers if even people in the Netherlands cannot get access to that translation because according to dAb no library has one of the ca. 30 copies that were printed as a proof (proefdruk). Today he wrote "I am very, very sorry Sir to disagreeing, but my references were undisputed all placed as per september 2007 till shortly ago, when suddenly they were deleted without any discussion by people whose only purpose seems to be stalking me wherever possible" [5] That's a completely false statement. On Febr. 23, 2008 a self reference of him was removed on this Wikipedia [6] which he later reinserted into that article maybe 10 more times spread out over a period of 5 months. So it is just a lie to write his self references were undisputed until recently. On about a dozen language versions of Wikipedia he has been blocked for long periods (ranging from 1 month to 1 year and even for an indefinite time [7]) or the articles he was spamming were semi-protected to stop dAb from reinserting references to his books (often in combination with violations of WP:3RR as he was on this Wikipedia). So it is clear this user has a long history of blatant self promotion on Wikipedia.

When I removed dAb's self reference in the article Tram it wasn't clear to me the line was a reference to some statement in that article because these are presented in a different way. Also when you reverted his last edit in that article this was not obvious to you I guess. So now I see 3 options; 1. The corresponding text should be removed as well; 2. The information doesn't need a reference; 3. The reference is needed because the information cannot be found in other books or online. In the last case that means almost automatically it is original research which is not allowed (see WP:NOR). So that last option doesn't seem to be a logic choice. Another point of mentioning his books in articles is, can a reader easily get access to such a book (Are they still for sale? Are they available at libraries world wide? Is there only a Dutch version?). - Robotje (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I do see that. However, I would have expected a bit more explanation instead of removal without comment. I don't know the book, but I do see the situation. For me, as an outsider, I see a reference, which may very well be OK. OK, he published it himself, but say that I would have added the reference? If I would add the data, and add a reference to my own work, where the work is in a peer-reviewed journal, then I am in 'violation' of the conflict of interest guideline (though it does not forbid me to do that), but not of WP:NOR.

The question is not if the book is still for sale. The only thing that needs to be true is that the book actually exists, and that there are, whereever, still copies available. That means that the information is verifyable (OK, we will have problem verifying it .. but still ..). Your answer, and the removal, does show me that the removal was not fully researched, and that you assumed that it was added by him (quite right, other editors would format the reference different), and not by someone else. I understand that there have been situations with this user in the past, and I don't know what happened then, but that is not a reason to take out all edits by that user, there will be parts that are OK, even in a whole set of 'bad' edits.

The problem is that I see here a 'reference' being removed which was there for (on Tram) for more than 10 months and for about 400 edits (by a lot of editors) .. without question, on the other article it is in a list with a lot of references, and still this one is picked out to be removed (again after more than 10 months).

What I would like to see is a wider discussion with an appropriate wikiproject, and to see some discussion on the reference, and its appropriateness. WP:NOR would then apply when the source is not reliable, but it seems to me very strange that the book is unreliable (except if it does not exist) as a source for "Since 1981 onwards, nearly 150 articulated LRV-trams of the last kind are e.g. to be found in The Hague Netherlands." .. there will be other sources stating the same, and I don't see how this is possibly an interpretation or a self generated theory. The only violation would be the COI violation. We have had that before, and reverts of clear coi-additions which were in a questionably helpful way have been discussed on a high level here, even these reverts are very controversial.

I hope the IP got the warning that he is not to touch that reference (even if it gets removed), but instead ask for help somewhere else, and to engage in discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research and found this page where some background information of the 147 LRV-trams are documented. OK, it is in Dutch, but so is dAb's book. You can read there about the first 100 trams of this type (3001-3100 series; built in the 1981 to 1984 period) and the next 47 (3101-3147 series; built in 1992 and 1993). With an updated reference text that link can be used which is more useful for the reader of an English article about trams is general somewhere in the world who most likely cannot get access to dAb's book anyway. By doing so, the need for a self reference is gone. - Robotje (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily I do read/speak Dutch, so no problem there. As this site is also not a reviewed site (it is a personal website, with possibilities of typos etc. And maybe less reliable than a book), I would suggest, add them both. Hey .. this reference makes the book actually a more reliable source .. they say the same. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For people who want to see 147 pictures of all the 147 trams; see GTL8-I (first 100) and GTL8-II (next 47). So it's clear, there is enough online information to prove the 147 LRV-trams were used in The Hague and almost no need for Dutch reading skills. I don't see any need for a reference to a book that can only be publicly accessed if you go to a specific library in The Hague hoping it is not lent out. Besides, once the book is printed, all the typo's and errors will stay; a site of a tram-freak can be updated easily if some mistake is found. To me books are not automatically more reliable. - Robotje (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you quoted the COI-guideline above: "COI editing is strongly discouraged." Well, if it can be avoided, let's do so. - Robotje (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there is until now no reason to expect that the book is not reliable, so both references are even better. And I don't see a reason to avoid if the information is correct, and neutral. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring up the point of reliability of sources. So far the 2 online sources I brought up were more or less in line with each other and the text in the article that might need a reference so there is no need to expect they are unreliable to serve as a reference. Yesterday you wrote:

" .. but it seems to me very strange that the book is unreliable (except if it does not exist) as a source for "Since 1981 onwards, nearly 150 articulated LRV-trams of the last kind are e.g. to be found in The Hague Netherlands." .. there will be other sources stating the same, and I don't see how this is possibly an interpretation or a self generated theory. The only violation would be the COI violation. " (undelining added)

Well those other sources have been found so the need for a COI edited reference is gone because it can be easily avoided.

By the way, at the end of the edit where you started this topic you wrote ".. I would like to invite all three of you to discuss the edits .." so let's not draw any conclusions before the others have added their point of view. At what page did you think of having that discussion anyway? - Robotje (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you found another source, on a personal website, without references as to where the data was retrieved or compiled form (there may somewhere be a reference page, don't know), that website's reliability is similar to the book, and as the book is published by the Vereniging de Haagse Tramvrienden (an organisation that I even have heard of, being from the north, and knowing nothing about trams). As the personal website is unreferenced, and the book can not be found (though apparently has a 'lit. opg'), together they make a solid case, while each on their own may not do that. You say that the book can not be bought anymore, and the link is to a neutral place (the special:ISBN), so there is apparently not much personal gain in that than a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia'. The coi problem is IMHO here not really big, and as I said a couple of times, not forbidden (and he did disclose the coi clearly, I think)

I would suggest discussion on an appropriate wikiproject, or on one of the bigger/top level pages which is affected.

I am sorry, to me this feels like this user is stalked (There were a handful of Dutch editors involved in the scond block, and in the last case also a couple), and because he did something in the past, you are now erasing all information he has entered. After the second block I hoped he was put into place, but then erasing 'his' information without explanation does feel like 'teasing' (even if that was not meant to be). If the situation is so bad, then you could have brought it to the attention of the local administrators here (WP:ANI), or to a local noticeboard (WP:COIN), but now it looks to me too much like bashing a user into place (again, even if it is not meant to be that way). He may have had well earned blocks on nl, and then not being able (due to the blocks) to perform any good/resonable/not too bad edits that may follow, here he now had his warnings and I hope he understands the consequences of further actions. Cleanup is fine, but that is not 'erasing the edits', it is seeing what is done, and then considering deletion or refactoring. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other source with the 147 pictures (which doesn't look like a personal website) would also perfectly do as a reference for information that is not so questionable like " .. nearly 150 articulated LRV-trams of the last kind are e.g. to be found in The Hague Netherlands." As for your remark "so there is apparently not much personal gain in that than a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia'. "; most of the self references dAb makes in the Wikipedia's I can only logically explain with a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia' attitude of the person who puts the self reference there. Mentioning a French book by Vallée and his own translation of it into the Dutch language where the French book is not even on topic for the article doesn't make sense to me in a non-Dutch Wikipedia. If the translation is also not available to the public like in any library or from a book shop because that translation was only printed in about 30 copies in a proof-run in 1973, then mentioning it in the Dutch Wikipedia wouldn't make sense even if the original book was on topic for the article. Frequently re-inserting those self references, often while engaging in editwars, spread over some 15 language versions of Wikipedia with also local wikipedians reverting his self references that usually only stops after either his account is blocked or the article is semi-protected proofs to me he is extremely eager to have that self reference in those articles. He doesn't do that to help the readers of say the Japanese or the Bulgarian article because the book cannot be accessed by those readers and those readers are extremely unlikely to be able to read a text in Dutch about a difficult scientific subject. It cannot serve as a reference in the articles because it is a translation so nothing new will be in the book that's not in the French original and by the way, he always 'forgot' to mention the translation was into Dutch and not in the local language of the Wikipedia he added the self reference. He cannot do it to be able to sell more of those books so what other explanation can be thought of then a 'whoohoo, my name is in Wikipedia' attitude?

In the case of the reference of his book in the article Tram is maybe less obvious but as mentioned before, only in the English Wikipedia he so far added his books in at least 8 different articles. It still is not clear to me why in a general article about trams mentioning the about 150 trams in The Hague is important. Were those the first trams of that type world wide? What makes those 147 trams so special to insert that line in that section of the article? I guess that is something we better discuss on the talk page of that article. And dAb can then also better explain why he first states the tram-book is ".. written primarely by mr.Dr. Ploeger .." and later ".. I'm the writer and mr.dr. Ploeger co-author only as editor in collaboration." - Robotje (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the situation still progresses, I have opened a ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Dutch_administrators.2C_bureaucrats_and_editors_handling_of_User:86.83.155.44. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DAB again ..

This got mentioned this on his talkpage (after his last block here). There it was off topic and a non-argument, but I want to remark it to you seperately. I noticed that you mentioned DABs blocks on the Dutch wikipedia on a talkpage (and I think I saw that more often, don't know where and by who). I don't think that that is necessery, it did not have anything to do with the discussion in progress (which was running off topic and into an edit war anyway; we all know that DAB has a tendency to do that and is the reason for the block again). I therefor ask you to not mention those things (or use them in an argument); guidelines and policies are different here (I actually get the feeling that the english conflict of interest guideline is less strong than the Dutch, should give the Dutch one a read ..), and blocks on other wikis are therefore not an argument here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

monju

Is it possible to clarify, what was missing at that wiki ? The website of Japan Atomic Energy Agency, is quite clear about it.

what are you up to ? with all your "fact"-actions ? What do you want to imply ?

1947enkidu (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I effectively resotored the fact-template next to the word 'Former' the reader could see the following text in the article.

“

Former functions of Matsuura:
1998: chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute

2000: chairman of Nuclear Safety Commission

2012: chairman of Japan Nuclear Safety Institute ^[21]

June 2013: President Japan Atomic Energy Agency ^[22]

”

21 = The Mainich Shimbun (31 May 2013) Matsuura named to head Japan Atomic Energy Agency

22 = Japan Atomic Energy Agency: Board of directors board of directors June 2013

So all these four functions should be former functions; i.e. Matsuura is no longer chairman or president of all these four organisations. For the last two I really doubt that. The link in footnote 22 even contradicts what you state in the article because you can read there he is still the JAEA-president. On that page in the section under the heading "President Name: Shojiro MATSUURA" it is written: "Tenure: Mar. 31, 2015".

On Wikipedia:Verifiability you can read:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. ..

Since I challenged the last two functions are former functions, they can be removed if no source is provided that directly supports what you wrote in the article. - Robotje (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Dutch this is called "spijkers op laag water zoeken"... Can you take your facts-logo back ? 1947enkidu (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 1947enkidu, basically it is very simple: If there is something you cannot prove with a source, just don't mentioned it in the article namespace. Don't blame the messenger if you cannot prove something you already wrote in a Wikipedia article. - Robotje (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sja, het is me wat

Nou noemde ik zomaar Jimbo een troll! Kan ik eigenlijk niet maken vindt je ook niet? Nee, Wikipedia is niks voor mij, ik vlieg elke keer de bocht uit. Gelukkig ziet men dat in op NL Wikipedia. Gewoon, OT. Bam! Uit met het gedonder met die verwarde Statler. En straks heb ik nog een global blok als ik niet uitkijk..... Nee, geef mij maar het prutsproject Wikisage. Daar ga ik het artikel over Jimbo op mijn gemak in elkaar prutsen. Mischien krijg ik wel wat hulp!
Overigens, als ik het artikel Danae Stratou hier nou eens in mijn gebruikersruimte herschrijf, wil jij dan eens naar het Engels kijken? Ik heb nog nooit wat in het Engels geschreven, dus vind het wel een aardige uitdaging. Graaf Statler (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Robotje. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Robotje. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibis

Dear Robotje, I request your comment at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#BOAC_Flight_777, --Otto (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Robotje. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... I just tried to nominate a file to be deleted (see File:General Albert Orsborn.jpg. I already notified the uploader but the remark

Add the following to the image captions: {{deletable image-caption|Tuesday, 3 November 2020|F7}}

is not clear to me. Where should I add that template? Robotje (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robotje, I believe that message means that you should add that wikicode to the captions of any pages on Wikipedia using that image (so that editors seeing the image in use would know it's being proposed for deletion). However, no page currently uses that image, so I don't think you have to add that template anywhere. If you want to ask anything else about this, you may want to visi::t Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Hopefully this helped

. Seagull123 Φ 14:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I just added that template at the page related to the file and guess that is enough for now. - Robotje (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Robotje

Thank you for creating Jan Raatgever.

User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating, could you please add more sources? just two more reliable sources should suffice.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Celestina007 (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Jan Kolhoe

Hello, Robotje,

Thank you for creating Jan Kolhoe.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

We need links to sources of information about this fellow. We also need birth and date of death on the article. Why is he important?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru:, I'm very surprised by the comments in the article and above here.

In the opening sentence it says "Johan Somaroe (Jan) Kolhoe (c. 1918) was a member of the Surinamese parliament in the 1950s and 1960s." So the question 'Why is he important?' looks weird to me. Being a member of a national parliament by itself makes the person important enough for Wikipedia I would say.
I put the article in the category 'Possibly living people' because he was born around 1918, so if he is still alive he would be around 103 years old. I couldn't find any recent activities about him, nor any reliable source he died. So we should presume he is alive although it is more likely he already passed away. Your remark "We also need ... date of death on the article ..." seems to be inconsistent with that Wikipedia policy.
In the article you put a template stating there are no references at all but that is not true, when you put that template there were 3 references.

Please remove that template and explain for the other items. - Robotje (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru:, you did about 350 edits after my previous edit, but sofar ignored me completely. Please response on the 3 issues I mentioned there. - Robotje (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru:, another almost 250 edits but still nothing here!? - Robotje ([[User ) 07:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru:, again you did another 500 edits spread out over many pages, but still nothing here!? - Robotje (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru:, again you did another 1000 edits spread out over many pages, but still nothing here!? Why don't you answer/respond to the issues I mentioned above? - Robotje (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru:, again you did another 100 edits spread out over many pages, but still nothing here!? Why don't you answer/respond to the issues I mentioned above? - Robotje (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru:, again you did another 300 edits spread out over many pages, but still nothing here!? Why don't you answer/respond to the issues I mentioned above? - Robotje (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru:, again you did another 100 edits spread out over many pages, but still nothing here!? Why don't you answer/respond to the issues I mentioned above? - Robotje (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the your perspective here - there were three sources listed when the tag was placed on the article. The problem is that there's is so little information about those sources that they were impossible (or at least very difficult) to identify.

About the notability question - assuming the assertion is true that they were elected to public office at a national level, then NPOL is satisfied. So, the only problem jumping out is the lack of information on the citation templates.

Until you sort the issue raised, the tag stays. You can remove the tag yourself, it says so with the Page Curation message. In doing so you leave yourself open to other editors placing tags. Like life, everything is a choice.

Now, about this pinging. At Wikipedia, we are all volunteers, Go read WP:VOLUNTEER and learn that it's frowned upon to repeatedly demand that someone else do something. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Netherlands Antilles general election etc

Hey, thanks for creating these articles - would you mind citing your sources inline though? (also, if possible, with the {{cite news}} template to provide more details). Thanks! Elli (talk | contribs) 16:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the contributions

I stumbled Dewnarain Poetoe, and cleaned up the others. Adding WikiProject to the talk page is useful. Indeed, the Suriname and Curaçao groups are dead as door nails, there are all kind of gimmicks to keep track of what's happening, problematic pages etc. KittenKlub (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KittenKlub:, temporarily my focus changed to adding pictures at Commons of members of the Dutch House of representatives and/or Dutch Senate. My intention is to later resume working here on en-wiki on articles related to politicians at the Netherlands Antilles. - Robotje (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Party membership Julius Caesar de Miranda

Hi Robotje. I am bit confused about Julius Caesar de Miranda. There seem to be indications that he belonged to a party and he was probably independent, but I can't seem to find anything to point either way. Could you please enlighten me? KittenKlub (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not successful in finding some information about that. Maybe because he was not a member of a party, but I just don't know. - Robotje (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have the same problem. I can't confirm him as an independent, but there does not seem to be any information about a party membership either. I removed the party from the infobox, so let's keep it blank.KittenKlub (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Johan Jacques Volkerts moved to draftspace

Thanks for creating Julius Johan Jacques Volkerts. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Reading Beans (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Robotje, zie jij nog kans om dit artikel bij te schaven? Als ik het goed begrijp hoeven er alleen bronnen bij of moet het beetje dat nog geen bron heeft verwijderd worden. Want anders ben ik bang dat ze hem op een gegeven moment gaan verwijderen. Ymnes (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt voor de melding. Ik zal er binnenkort eens naar kijken. - Robotje (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

André Goede

Hoi Robotje, nu je er toch bent :-) In 2009 schreef MoiraMoira het artikel nl:André Goede. Volgens haar was hij directeur van British Tobacco in Suriname. Op een overlegpagina roerde een Surinamer zich die dat bevestigde en dat Goede ook directeur van Shell in Suriname was geweest. Het artikel is genomineerd en de nominatie werd vandaag verlengd. Heb jij misschien nog toegang tot bronnen waaruit zijn directeurschap bevestigd kan worden? Ymnes (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb al wat gezocht of ik wat kon vinden over André Goede maar kom tot nu toe niet verder dan wat al toegevoegd is als bron op het nl-wiki artikel. Ik weet niet wat ze als bron(nen) gebruikt heeft. Ze heeft heel wat artikelen over sporters geschreven (vooral baseball als ik het me goed herinner) maar soms ook over echt hele diverse onderwerpen zoals hier dus iemand met een leidinggevende functie bij een grote onderneming in Suriname. Ik vermoed dat haar bronnen destijds in 2009 via Google gevonden werden. Maar ja, veel pagina's uit 2009 bestaan intussen niet meer of kan Google intussen ook niet meer vinden. In die periode kon je bijv. op de site van het NOS radioprogramma 'Zorg en Hoop', dat veel Surinaams nieuws bevatte, nog redelijk actuele informatie over Suriname vinden die elders op internet niet te vinden was (zie hier een voorbeeld). Het programma is in 2005 gestopt maar de site was ook daarna nog jarenlang beschikbaar met intussen verouderde informatie. Op een bepaald moment was dat niet meer op internet te vinden en verdween daarmee ook uit Google. Ik zal nog iets meer proberen te vinden over André Goede maar vrees dat dat niet/onvoldoende gaat helpen om het artikel van MoiraMoira te redden. - Robotje (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dank je, dit is een schril contrast met TBP waar maar wat geroepen wordt. Delpher heb ik al zo'n beetje doorgespit. Ik denk eerder aan jaarboeken van bedrijven of (economische) scripties uit/over die tijd. Ymnes (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Julius Johan Jacques Volkerts

Hello, Robotje. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Julius Johan Jacques Volkerts, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I have just come across your series of articles on Surinamese elections and politicians on nl.wiki – an amazing piece of work that must have taken a huge amount of research, so just wanted to say well done! Number 5 7 03:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm starting to translate the election articles to en.wiki. Do you mind if I ask what the source for the vote figures was? I've already had one of the articles tagged as needing more references... Cheers, Number 5 7 03:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Number 57, yes it was really a lot of work to write the articles about the elections and the biographies of the people who got elected. I had to collect the information from multiple sources that were often hard to find because initially I didn't even know who got elected. But eventually I was very pleased with the results. I guess you have similar experiences. As for the votes in the first round see [8] and the second round see [9]. The number of votes people got I usually found, just as in this case, through Delpher. I can imagine finding the data there in old newspapers can be difficult for someone who is not a native speaker of Dutch. And to make it worse the OCR they used is not always good enough. If you run into more requests for references, please let me know. - Robotje (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, thank you! Number 5 7 13:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check – I sourced the results of 1868 Surinamese general election, but had a couple of differences with your version:

There was another candidate with over 10 votes (Simon Abendanon with 19 votes); he and some other candidates were missing from the list in Kolonial nieuwsblad but are listed in Surinaamsche courant
The sources I found for the second round (e.g. this) have van Emden with 139 votes and Heylidy with 86, compared to 137 and 89 in the nl.wiki version

Cheers, Number 5 7 22:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ministers

Hoi Robotje, everything well? Ik wordt nog vaak met plezier herinnerd aan je werk over Suriname in de paginageschiedenis van artikelen. Daardoor zijn er ook veel politici beschreven, terwijl daar niet altijd even gemakkelijk bronnen van zijn te vinden. Van de ministers ontbreken er nu nog 32, zie hier. Heb jij nog zin in een opleving om hier een flinke hap uit te halen? Of bevallen de andere dingen die je doet je tegenwoordig beter? Wat het antwoord ook is, plezierig (lang) weekend! Cheers, Ymnes (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Het gaat prima hier. Ik ben recentelijk vooral actief op Commons. Dat geeft soms aanleiding om meteen even edits te doen op Wikidata danwel een of meer taalversies van Wikipedia. Ik heb in het verleden behoorlijk mijn best gedaan om, met de voor mij toen beschikbare bronnen (vooral op internet), artikelen aan te maken over Surinaamse politici. Dat betrof vooral personen die voor 2000 actief waren in de politiek. Onder andere om dat wat meer systematisch te kunnen aanpakken heb ik toen ook lijsten gemaakt met bijv. de ministers in een bepaald kabinet, personen die gekozen waren bij een verkiezing, etc. Ik heb daarbij geprobeerd om rode links in die lijsten weg te werken. Maar dan wel dat alleen te doen als er ook voldoende informatie beschikbaar was voor enkele regels met encyclopedische/biografische informatie. Nogal eens lukte dat aanvankelijk niet maar enkele jaren later wel doordat er intussen meer informatie beschikbaar was gekomen. Vermoedelijk is het intussen weer mogelijk om voor enkele personen op jouw lijst een relatief kort artikel aan te maken. Ik zal de komende tijd eens proberen of dat gaat lukken en dan op en-wiki die artikelen aan te maken. Dan denk ik bijv. aan

Wie weet gaat dat lukken. - Robotje (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alle hulp is heel welkom, dankjewel dat je het gaat proberen! Ymnes (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goed dat je me eraan herinnert trouwens dat je ze eerst nog niet kon schrijven omdat je geen bronnen vond. Ik vond dat namelijk ook al zo moeilijk, maar dat is blijkbaar ook gewoon moeilijk :-D Ymnes (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this series of edits, I will clarify here for posterity sake that the above template, which is completely standard for making someone aware that a contentious topic exists, does not imply that there are any issues with your editing and is not the same thing as a warning.

Cheers.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]