User talk:Krator/Archive/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

I can not understand your behaviour!!!!

Dear Krator,

I really can not understand your behavior. Is there any problem with the photo "Typical buildings in Amsterdam"???? The photo has excellent quality (better than many others) and it shows three beautiful houses of Amsterdam. In Amsterdam there are hundreds of them. That's why I uploaded this photo. If you want to delete any photo there are plenty of useless and low quality photos in wikipedia to delete.

Thank you for your attention. KostasKon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostaskon (talk • contribs) 13:11, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

My reasons for removing the picture are as follows:

• The section does not need more images - the leaning buildings image is already there.
• The image does not picture typical buildings in Amsterdam. These buildings are not even typical of the old city centre of Amsterdam. It pictures some recently transformed old warehouses, which are not at all typical of the more famous (and by outsiders perhaps considered typical) buildings on the canals. The recently transformed warehouses almost only appear in the old harbour in Oost.

You might consider adding it to Warehouse. User:Krator (t c) 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mabel Wisse Smit: 'incorrect' or 'false'?

Hello Krator, I request that you give some attention to the discussion page of Mabel Wisse Smit. I wonder if you agree with Brederode, ArnoutF and myself that in the controversy surrounding her connections with Bruinsma, the Dutch words 'onvolledige en onjuiste informatie' are most adequately translated by 'incomplete and incorrect information'. Paul kuiper NL 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. User:Krator (t c) 21:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently BetacommandBot ignores warnings

FYI

{{nobots}}

'<!--BetacommandBot Exclude-->'

is completely ignored by BetacommandBot , and the page was vandalized again by the bot. Complaints to the bot owner are ignored, so I've just left it with a ':' in front of it so the bot goes away. Thanks Krator, I've really enjoyed your help over this last year. BTW - The noob is back at The noob (webcomic) - It was added by someone else, and has aready avoided one speedy. Timmccloud 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Norwood, Ohio

Thanks for providing your opinion, but (please pardon if this is considered canvassing; I'm not sure) the IP has reinserted the link again. What (if anything) should be done, and what (if anything) should I contribute to it? Nyttend 15:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Revert, and {{uw-spam4}}.
2. If he reinstates, WP:AIV.

User:Krator (t c) 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Amsterdam

Perhaps I saw too much IP crap today. Plus to remove a sourced section without any explanation often is vandalism, although perhaps not in this case. Why should this section actually be removed? I just read the talk but still think it should be included. Garion96 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, though the source is quasi reliable, the unexplained fact does not mean anything as "the most multicultural city in the world" is an ambiguous standard. Explaining that standard would require further sources, which apparently do not exist. Thus, leave it out. User:Krator (t c) 22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

TDVision AFD Article

Thank you for your comment to keep the article. Can you help to make sure this article does not get deleted? 3dtech 00:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No. User:Krator (t c) 10:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Nice to know that I'm appreciated. Your compliment means a lot to me. Thank you. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Populous: The Beginning FAC

I'm confused as to what you were asking in your oppose. Could you clarify on the FAC page please? David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as detailed on the FAC page I changed some stuff. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've filled out as much as I can. The game doesn't spend much time on backstory (actually, it has none; you only know you're supposed to beat all the other tribes to attain godhood). David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Atarimania Links

Hello guys,

I am the poster of the Atarimania links. I still don't understand why these are regarded as spam. They contain more info per game than Mobygames or World of Spectrum usually do. So what is the point I am missing? Even java.com has a link to our site (http://www.java.com/en/levelup/). Furthermore, Atarimania is a non-commercial project. Again I ask you: what's the problem? Btw., there is no rule that forbids posting as IP.

Please sign your notes on this page, and link to the discussion you are referring to. Currently I have no idea who you are or what you are writing about, but it does reek of WP:COI. User:Krator (t c) 17:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NS-station

For your info this link, it seems you were confused about Dutch parameter names.--Patrick 12:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Groundless accusation

Please do not groundlessly accuse a user of being malicious, see User_talk:Tahrim#Moving_Netherlands. Apparently the user was just too bold and unaware of the past discussion.--Patrick 00:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what Patrick says, because i speak not so good English, but i am with his messages (ik ben voor jouw bericht, Patrick). I am new on this English Wikipedia, and i am more active on the Dutch Wikipeda, so i can not see al pages with Wikipedia: on the English Wikipedia, so what? I am a new user... I have no time to read they whole discussion, and i will not all words translate with Windows Live Translator. I am more active on the Dutch Wikipedia, there i am busy and i am here only for the articles from Amsterdam-South-East. So why give you me a warning? It's not maliciously. Tahrim 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

With any other page move, I would have left a simple warning. The whole Netherlands/The Netherlands debate was quite awful, and any revival would be worse. Also, I was not aware of Tahrim's knowledge of English. I fixed some of the English on his userpage, too. User:Krator (t c) 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(Dutch translation, for convenience) In elk ander geval van titelwijziging zou ik een simpele waarschuwing achtergelaten hebben. Het hele Netherlands/The Netherlands debat was nogal beroerd, en een reactivatie van dat debat zou nog beroerder zijn. Daarbij komt dat ik niet op de hoogte was van Tahrim's kennis van het Engels. Ik heb ook wat van het Engels op zijn gebruikerspagina aangepast. User:Krator (t c) 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your fear of revival of the discussion is no reason for a groundless accusation.--Patrick 23:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To explain myself more clearly, the accusation of maliciousness was based on the assumption that the user had knowledge of the previously ongoing debate. User:Krator (t c) 23:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sorry that I made this mistake" would be nice, it is oddly missing both from Tahrim's and from your comment.--Patrick 00:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(Translated to Dutch:) Dit is zeker een misverstand. Sorry is wel op zijn plaats, ik doe niks expres. En ondertussen wacht ik nog steeds op een Sorry. Tahrim 08:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(Translated to Dutch:) Ik zat ook wel fout, maar ik ga niet speciaal elk archief bezoeken. En ook: sinds wanneer hoort The niet meer erbij? Tahrim 09:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry would be nice. Tahrim 10:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have said sorry, and sorry from you is nice. Tahrim (Talk) 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I wait. Tahrim (Talk) 10:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Groundless accusation II

Bedankt voor de hug (knuffel, nietwaar?) - Tahrim (Talk) 14:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tahrim would like to give you a HUG

National Maritime Museum and Looted Art

Thank you for the edit in Wikipedia talk:Third opinion. in the description you write that "An NMM spokesperson has put their point of view on the talk page" - can you verify that? How can Wikipedia make sure, that the statements from fresh account are from a representative or spokesperson? Would it be wrong to say that "An account claiming to be a NMM spokesperson has put their point of view on the talk page?" Thank you.

I find it better to assume good faith. Once one has done a good amount of epistemology, everything can be questioned. And one decides that doing so does not lead to productivity. User:Krator (t c) 04:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Golden Sun FAC

No one else is responding... :( But I forgot to pester you and weigh in again. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What on earth did I receive a porn star for?

Whatever the reason, thank you very much for this rather unusual award! — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Arna's Children 3O

You were asked for a third opinion on an alleged dispute on Arna's Children, and provided it within two hours of the initial request. However, the requesting editor had made no attempt to discuss this matter on the talk page, nor to engage in any discussion with me about the appropriateness of his edits, before -- or even after -- requesting a third opinion. I find it very hard to accept the good faith of this editor (particularly in the light of our history, to which he alludes, and which nearly resulted in his blocking), and I believe that he abused the 3O process. Is your opinion binding, or are there possible further steps in this dispute? RolandR 01:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many possible further steps. In fact, my opinion is binding in no way other than that it represents (or attempts to) established consensus on the subject. It is not worth the effort to fight over the adjective used with "West Bank" in every single instance of it in Wikipedia. Rather, discuss this at Talk:West Bank, and attempt to make the lead of that article clear enough so that a reader who clicks on a link to it will understand what adjectives could have been there. If you really want to see "occupied" there, a step to WP:RFC would be the next logical thing to do. However, I strongly recommend you recognise my reasoning above. User:Krator (t c) 12:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Links Netherlands

Please do not (almost) orphan pages by deleting relevant links [1]!

Your argument was "we have a portal and several templates for this" but you did not even move them to there!--Patrick 10:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, portals (and categories) are extra means of navigation, they are not supposed to replace regular links.--Patrick 11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That was three months ago. I still think the edit was justified. See: WP:BTW; WP:CONTEXT; and Wikipedia:See also. Though similar featured articles (e.g. Germany) do include a list of miscellaneous topics, they also do something Netherlands does not, which is relevant wikilinking in the prose itself. If sorted by topic like the German section, I would not object to seeing the section return. Do realise that not all links were relevant - what is Reporters Without Borders doing there, or Carver (automobile)?

As to your note related to portals, "regular links" are not the see also section - these are links in the prose itself, relevant to the context. The ministries should be linked in the government sections in a paragraph about ministries, and the law article should be linked from a section about law.

Also, I would like to note that the Netherlands article greatly suffers from all the discussion surrounding peripheral things. From the talk page, recent issues have been the article title, the image in the infobox, the "largest cities" of the provinces, and now the See also section. Meanwhile, the article has improved very little. In fact, the only improvements done in the last four months are some section re-ordering, and the addition and reformatting of some sources by myself.User:Krator (t c) 11:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The links were sorted: alphabetically. A preference to sort them systematically or put them elsewhere in the page is no excuse at all to delete them!--Patrick 12:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but encourage you to read the rest of my reasoning. Sorting was a relatively minor argument in the reasoning, and it is fallacious to assume my whole standpoint depended on it. User:Krator (t c) 13:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I read it, but I do not see another argument, except for two specific links.--Patrick 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a schematic approach would help you see the other points:

• The edit was made a long time ago. (Unwritten connotations: no one reverted it at the time, and no one discussed it then)

It does not mean that people agreed, they may not have noticed (I did not until I tried to find a particular page I knew existed through the Netherlands page).--Patrick 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• In the article the Netherlands, the misc topics section was used as a replacement for linking relevant articles in the prose. The title "miscellaneous topics" implies "things that weren't discussed above", while they should have been discussed in the prose.

Leave them alone or put them in the prose!--Patrick 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not an argument. I obviously agree that links should be put in prose, but that is no reason not to remove the existing huge see also section. User:Krator (t c) 01:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• The links were not sorted according to their topic, limiting the usability of the section. More specifically, this is editor centric thinking ("we need to include a link to all articles") rather than reader centric ("Let's help the reader who seeks information about ... ").

Hiding pages by removing links is very unhelpful.--Patrick 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This does not in any way refute my argument above. See also WP:USEFUL for a related though not completely similar and complete discussion of this topic. Pre-emptive rebuttal: indeed this is not a deletion discussion, but the arguments on that essay are nonetheless valid) User:Krator (t c) 01:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not all links in the section were relevant to the general topic of the Netherlands.

That is no excuse for deleting other links.--Patrick 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It indeed is not. However, this is related to an argument you put forward, namely that the removal of this section made some pages unfindable. I argue that the pages that typically suffered from this symptom were (exceptions noted) the ones that were not relevant. User:Krator (t c) 01:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• A rebuttal of your reference to portals, as you wrote that "they are not supposed to replace regular links.", to which I reply that with regular links normal in-line links are (or should be) meant, and not glorified see also sections.

Portals and categories are extra means of navigation, they are not supposed to replace links from article to article.--Patrick 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "links" here also includes "links in see also sections". User:Krator (t c) 01:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Finally, the Netherlands article in general suffers from the inclination of its editors to discuss peripheral topics rather than improving the article itself.

This is not peripheral, you damaged the navigation between articles, including the awareness of the existence of the other articles.--Patrick 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is peripheral when dealing with the subject "how to improve the article Netherlands". Note the difference between article and topic here, and improving the article or improving the project in general. I do not claim that only the article is worthy of improvement. I am simply stating that it suffers from the fact that its (potential) editors are engaged in discussions that are peripheral to its improvement. User:Krator (t c) 01:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope this makes my argumentation more clear. User:Krator (t c) 16:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You owe me a new monitor

I now have coke all over it after reading your comment on Seraphim Logo.svg . I used to have a userbox that said something like that. Thats for the LOL - Fosnez 10:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wild Arms 5 article evaluation

Further information: [[:Talk:Wild Arms 5#WP:VG Assessment|Talk:Wild Arms 5 § WP:VG Assessment]]

Please look at the 19:00, 30 September 2007 in the past revesions of the Wild ARMs 5 article. That revision is how the article is suppose to look before the vandals cut the article to piecies yesterday. 216.201.5.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)