User talk:Gidonb/Archive 2016
Precious edit
balance
Thank you, Gidon, open for many languages, for quality articles on a wide spectrum of topics, such as International Society for Contemporary Music, Moroccan Wall and Dora van der Meiden-Coolsma, for the correct Netherlands, for dispute resolution, consensus building and "creating a first or better balance in many articles", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gidonb,
I don't know where you got the idea that I wanted to discuss the official name of The Netherlands? Because I don't want to discuss that. I simply thought the official name was The Netherlands as my colleagues at the city council of Almere told me so. I specifically asked them what the official name was that we use. They told me we use "The Netherlands" because the Dutch government also uses it that way when they address us in international mail. That's why I got the idea the official name was The Netherlands instead of Netherlands. But I do believe that my colleagues were wrong and you are right. So I stand corrected. Thank you for correcting me and therefore helping me expand my knowledge :-)
I want to ask you to be a bit more friendlier to me, esp. now that you know the 'story' behind my edit, as I found that you were a bit hostile towards me in regards to what you wrote when changing the Almere page. I've never been hostile in my reasoning when changing pages, nor have I been hostile towards you. Everyone can make a typo or a mistake, even you have made an error or two (as I see on this talk page). Also, please don't accuse me of making an edit I didn't make and then casting it into doubt; point that towards the one(s) who made the edit you're referring to.
I hope we'll be on better terms now and can talk to each other normally and that we're on the same page now.
Regards, Vistaus —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Once again a deletion attempt for no good reason though this one appears political. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._GeorgescuMasterknighted (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Masterknighted, since I do not know that there was a political motivation, I assume that there was no political motivation involved. I do know that there was absolutely no valid reason for deleting your article. I made this point, others thought the same, and a fine article has been kept and improved! gidonb (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Gidon, many thanks for your appreciated corrections of my rusty English and your review. I just had to correct two things. You corrected two times that Germans considered Ahrends to belong to a "Jewish race" while I reduced that from Germans to Nazis as we should not tend to maximise. Many Germans did not think like that. This is valid for your second correction but not for your first which was definitely wrong. At that time (about 1900) there were no Nazis in Germany since the party was founded after WWI in 1920. In Germany Jews had equal rights after 1871 (foundation of German Reich). Equality was requested by Germanys citizens since revolution of 1848/49 and it was integrated in the German constitution. During the German Empire (1871–1918) developed a very comprehensive Jewish citizenship and culture. But at the same time (1870s) an antisemitism propaganda came up which was not longer religiously motivated only but also racist. The German emperor Wilhelm/William II. hated Jews and held not back with it. German Jews wanted to assimilate and to be recognized as Germans and citizens. So many of them converted to Christianity and some even changed their family name like Bruno Arons/Ahrends and his siblings in 1904. They supported the emperor, wore his beard style and were true German patriots, fought in WWI but mostly got not the recognition like non-Jews.
Regarding Nazi Germany after 1933 you are right with it but in career terms this is really not the political reason for the exclusion of Jewish intelligence in Nazi Germany. The reason was that the Nazis wanted to exclude all Jews but also so called "Aryans" of other ideological or political background like democrats, liberals, socialists or communists from German culture, economy, administration and power. They wanted to clear off all what did not fit in their belief of a German dominated "clean" culture and they believed in a worldwide Jewish power they often described as "Jewish-bolshevist world conspiracy". Starting in 1933 the Nazis tried to detract the economic fundament of German Jews. The "race" ideology is another matter which was administered to cast Jews and others out of ("mixed") families, out of society, out of Germany (in that order), later to even exterminate them. The "race" ideology had really not much to do with career terms. We should not mix that up as Wikipedia should be as exact as possible.
You included a comment to the source of the article as you believe some aspects about todays use of Ahrends' buildings and especially his first self-contained project (his own home) should be transferred to another article (or deleted). I think that it definitely belongs to the article as it shows how much his buildings in post-war and post-Nazi Germany are appreciated. For me it demonstrates the difference in official politics between now and then but also that many of his buildings/his work lasted more than one century. When his work through many of his buildings is considered as cultural heritage and some even as World Heritage Site it shows that he is part of German and world culture. This is characterising him and his work so it belongs to the article. If you look at the German version of this article which I expanded you will see there is even a list of his projects which are considered as cultural heritage or World Heritage Site today. Think about it. Best regards from Germany, Miraculamundi (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Miraculamundi, glad you were super happy with 98% of my many edits! That's a very long story regarding the two that you did not like. I make these edits fast, based on (it isn't humble but the truth) wide knowledge and real POV concerns but I cannot beat the knowledge of each and every subject expert. I recommend also to you to invest your time in the article space. Thanks again for the feedback. I did learn something. Above all, happy editing!!! gidonb (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Notes on long-term RM cleanup efforts edit
It would probably be better to: a) if this RM closes to move, then re-propose the other one for a move later (3 months? people don't like a lot of back-to-back RMs), citing this one as precedent and look for others; or b) if this RM closes as no-consensus, give it a rest a while and try again at another article later; or c) if this RM closes with a clear consensus against moving it, just forget about it and let those fighting for it have their parenthetical disambiguation, at least until WP:AT is clarified yet again to even more strongly disfavor PARENDIS when there are alternatives. It seemed to me to already do this sufficiently, but we still keep having these discussions, so it evidently isn't getting its point across clearly enough. Anyway, patience is a virtue. It can sometimes take a couple of years to clean up a category, because individual editors at any given article may resist change just to resist change, and particular wikiprojects or other knots of editors may systematically oppose for territorial reasons.
Consensus can form slowly, especially if any "don't you touch my articles!" personalities are involved. My efforts to get any consistency at all in animal breed article names was stonewalled by a three- then two-editor tagteam for about 3 years, and I'm still not done yet, only about 90%. Because of the extreme tempers some of these people bring, and a particular "fuck that SMcCandlish guy" attitude in particular, I only do a couple of RMs in that area every few months. Policy- and source-based arguments ultimately win out over temper tantrums. Some editors have taken a more direct approach, e.g. the efforts to get compliance with MOS:JR (see Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. RM now running, probably the last major one); that whole mess has been cleaned up in about 3 months, but it took an RfC, a change at MoS, and a long string of RMs, with a lot of heated words, to get there. I'm taking the less contentious approach and just massaging things into consistency and trying to avoid flare-ups of conflict. That may be necessary for geographical name stuff, especially if it everycomes to removing unnecessary disambiguation from US place names like Alameda County, California. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish Thank you for the strategic advice and for sharing your expertise and experiences, both here and on the discussion page! I appreciate that you fight for consistent quality at Wikipedia. I have single handedly corrected almost the entire Dutch geography domain from nl.wiki styled paratheses to en.wiki styled comma delimitted dabs. It was a huge effort initially confronted by folks rolling my changes back, because why would we deviate from the standard at the Dutch Wikipedia (???!!!), then nearly completed but for a few cases where I would have needed special rights to move. These were actually completed by other contributors so my change was accepted over time! A setback was a user, he calls himself "fixer", who moved dabs from the Netherlands to the provinces. I moved them back again. Now only "Limburg (Netherlands)" is left over. Here I also had to suggest change to its Belgian counterpart, then was asked why one Belgian province and not the other, so that's how we met at the "Jardin du Luxembourg". I am glad we did! gidonb (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Glad to help. If any of those NL cleanup moves were conducted by RM discussions, they're good precedents to cite; see how the Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. RM is citing previous, essentially identical cases. I do this a lot in my WP:BREEDDAB moves, too, and it has made the difference in many cases. The average RM respondent, in a case that isn't stark obvious, mostly cares about whether this is how we normally do things, or whether someone's trying to do something weird. The more evidence they have that the move is routine, the more likely they are to support it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will study it all and take into account the next time I attempt to make an article move. V&D is another one that annoys me. It was moved from its long lived name to its short lived name, under false pretenses, after the chain went bankrupt (there would have been some logic to the short name when the chain still existed). I missed the discussion. On the same topic, I still have open CfDs from June 29. I am curious what would be your take would on these. gidonb (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, I managed to move Vroom & Dreesmann to its historic name. gidonb (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will study it all and take into account the next time I attempt to make an article move. V&D is another one that annoys me. It was moved from its long lived name to its short lived name, under false pretenses, after the chain went bankrupt (there would have been some logic to the short name when the chain still existed). I missed the discussion. On the same topic, I still have open CfDs from June 29. I am curious what would be your take would on these. gidonb (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Glad to help. If any of those NL cleanup moves were conducted by RM discussions, they're good precedents to cite; see how the Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. RM is citing previous, essentially identical cases. I do this a lot in my WP:BREEDDAB moves, too, and it has made the difference in many cases. The average RM respondent, in a case that isn't stark obvious, mostly cares about whether this is how we normally do things, or whether someone's trying to do something weird. The more evidence they have that the move is routine, the more likely they are to support it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Gidon, about Jensen Localization article: Could you be so kind of explaining me what I am doing wrong that the article is being set for deletion after I have added the required links and deleted the pro-marketing info?
Kind regards, Nicolas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasMartinFontana (talk • contribs) 07:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nicolas Martin Fontana, the problem is with the references. These are not independent. gidonb (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
gidonb, could you be more specific about independent references, as I am a quite beginner in wiki articles creation. Do you mean like newspaper or news agencies will be acceptable references for example?(talk • contribs) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (CEST)
- Nicolas Martin Fontana, please check out Verifiability, WP:NOR, and WP:POV for more details. Especially the first among the three. gidonb (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
gidonb thank for the info, I will have a look, as I wrote in the deletion talk, sorry for the newby troubles I am causing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasMartinFontana (talk • contribs) 13:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- NP, this is not personal! Just doing my WP chores. The article was deleted. gidonb (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Gidonb, thanks for your edits on Joost de Valk. My main concern is that the subject is suffering from a decision to do most of his work through his company; the citation from The Guardian did mention Yoast, which has its own collection of substantial sources -- there's no question Yoast has demonstrated its significance. What would you suggest here? Supplementing sources between the two articles? Wondering what the best way to clear up the issues would be. Crud muffins (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Tansfermarkt should not be cited in Wikipedia. As reference, it qualifies as a self-published source since most of its content is user-generated; as an external link, it runs afoul of point #1 of WP:ELNO. There being a plethora of different football stats websites out there, it is not a unique resource, and most of transfermarkt's content (provided it can be reliably sourced) would be included in a featured article. Please do not re-add it to articles. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sir Sputnik, can you backup these claims with reliable sources? In any case, after your comments I added it as an external link, not as a reference to anything. Imho a good compromise, but you seem to be eager to create an edit war around Transfermarkt. This is far from my editing style! gidonb (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have to leave for work in a few minutes, and so don't actually have the time to explain myself sufficient detail right now. I will of course do so in due course. Please do not take my silence in the mean time as acceptance of your position. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sir Sputnik, good luck with your other activities! You seem to be knowledgeable on sports at Wikipedia. I'm an eclectic editor myself, always happy to learn about problems and solutions, where these exist. gidonb (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, now that I'm not so short on time, let me explain the problems with Transfermarkt. Almost all of the content in the site's database is created by the site's users, not its staff. To quote the Transfermarkt login page: Whether player, manager, club, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user you can edit and complete almost all data yourself. Simply click the gear, fill in the form, and click submit. Furthermore, the site's terms of service explicitly say that Transfermarkt does not vouch for the veracity of user submitted content. This issue is also not just in the abstract. A few years ago User:Zombie433 was banned for, among other things, adding false information to Transfermarkt so that they could then use it as a source to add the same info to Wikipedia. So a decision was reached by the WikiProject Football that Transfermarkt should not be used in articles within scope the project. I trust you see now why I'm so reluctant to allow the link the website to stand. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- As I mentioned before, edit warring, ownership by supposedly "allowing" edits and, moreover, threatening colleague editors with bans is not my style. I keep away from all that. Of course, you may be luckier picking fights with others, if that is what you are looking for. Personally I prefer to extend help to other users. My recommendation to all others is to do exactly the same. It makes editing more pleasant. gidonb (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, now that I'm not so short on time, let me explain the problems with Transfermarkt. Almost all of the content in the site's database is created by the site's users, not its staff. To quote the Transfermarkt login page: Whether player, manager, club, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user you can edit and complete almost all data yourself. Simply click the gear, fill in the form, and click submit. Furthermore, the site's terms of service explicitly say that Transfermarkt does not vouch for the veracity of user submitted content. This issue is also not just in the abstract. A few years ago User:Zombie433 was banned for, among other things, adding false information to Transfermarkt so that they could then use it as a source to add the same info to Wikipedia. So a decision was reached by the WikiProject Football that Transfermarkt should not be used in articles within scope the project. I trust you see now why I'm so reluctant to allow the link the website to stand. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sir Sputnik, good luck with your other activities! You seem to be knowledgeable on sports at Wikipedia. I'm an eclectic editor myself, always happy to learn about problems and solutions, where these exist. gidonb (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have to leave for work in a few minutes, and so don't actually have the time to explain myself sufficient detail right now. I will of course do so in due course. Please do not take my silence in the mean time as acceptance of your position. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zwart-Wit '28 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zwart-Wit '28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Aftermath: Result of this unnecessary procedure was speedy keep. The nomination seriously conflicted with the policies of Wikipedia and these of the WikiProject of the nominator. 18:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)