User talk:Arnoutf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sandbox
Archive 2006
Archive January-March 2007
Archive April-August 2007
Archive September-October 2007
Archive November 2007-March 2008

  • If you post a message on my talk page, I will also answer here, in general I will not write a response on your talk page. So if you want to know the answer to a remark, please check back here.
  • Although I am Dutch myself I prefer to discuss in English as standard language and will maintain that even here. This allows every visitor to see what we are talking about.
  • For discussions on articles, in general I prefer to use the talk page of that article instead of talking through the personal talk pages; this in order to maintain centralised discussion.

Arnoutf

Contents

[edit] Unanimity v. anonimity (in EU#Bundesrat of Germany)

sorry, but it made me laugh. Anonimity might often be sought after in EU negotiations. Sandpiper (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You 're right, probably a Freudian typo ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the heads up

I appreciate it. Actually, keep an eye out for more developments on that whole, anon IP thing (5 anons coming from the same source and counting). Big things are afoot... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards tot he comment about dynamic or revolving IPs, were that the case, the RfCU wouldn't have been necessary. However, the user suggesting closing a discussion under one IP and closed it a short while later with another; supporting votes is an abuse of socking. As well, pointedly hiding your id while editing anon is a poor man's attempt at socking. I tried the good faith until the anon exposed how familiar he/she was with policy. They've been here before, and are concealing that past. However, am done talking about it in the article discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough did not know all ins and outs. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


♠Sir: If I might point out this little detail and supporting reference. Here are the "Diffs":

      • This is the post Arcayne states is, "However, the user suggesting closing a discussion under one IP...
♠I move that this be considered resolved.
* * The film does credit a "Scarlet Pimpernel" * Google shows 1600 hits discussing "Scsrlet Pimpernel's" role in Fitna[9] * Major media has discussed it and been referenced in the article * The community struggled with and adopted an existing position on this issue already. It has achieved community consensus. * There are indications of less than good faith here, Arcayne has used the lack of citation as his basis - when he in fact personally removed those same sources. This is just pseudo-sockpuppetry. And There is no basis upon which to exclude the mention of Scarlet Pimpernel or his role from the Fitna article
      • and this is the post he states "... and closed it a short while later with another;
♠Your comments occurred after this remark:
"Er, perhaps you missed my comment, right above Huon's? Maybe it occurred while you were hiding your id in the unsigned template (don't do that, btw, it's fairly dumb, and pretty much the mark of someone who's trying rather too hard to stay anonymous, whic begs the question as to why)." As this is a semi-protected page and I am a public editor they could not have been about me. I may not make any changes to any content, templates or otherwise. Additionally as to this: What was missed is this little - but vital - nugget from CIMBD is this particular quote: "However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb" It was not missed. It was posted by me and formed the heart of my position as well as the basis for community consensus. It states quite clearly: "The Primary source is preferred for film credits. IMDB is, at best, a tertiary source." This was however simply an issue of whether Scarlet Pimpernel received full or partial Director credit - that Scarlet Pimpernel receives Director credit was never in doubt - it is sourced both primarily in the films credits and supported by the tertiary source IMDB. As everyone is in agreement then, Scarlet Pimpernel should be restored to the entry. I see NO debate on it's presence, the request is simply for a citation. This is a matter that should have been dealt with in the standard Wiki way with tag.[citation needed]12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I find no evidence of "pretense of third party" there. The specific identifier ♠ should in and of itself be crystal clear.75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a signature in and of itself is crystal clear. You are not Prince; a symbol isn't an appropriate identifier in Wikipedia - unless of course, you are in fact a shovel, in which case I applaud your rather idiosyncratic development of opposable thumbs and fingers with which to work a keyboard. :)
Look, I get it - know you want to be cool, be different, hang out with the cool kids and smoke stogies, but the quality of your edits and civility are the only things that count here in Wikipedia. Wacky symbols in place of name is not going to get you noticed; being a good editor will. Being a bad editor will get you noticed in all the wrong ways. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


♠So failing to create the artificial illusion of sockpuppetry and being exposed in your dishonest characterizations and false accusations you take to to insults?

Actually I used the symbol here in Fitna for the precise reason of Not wanting to have my discussion misunderstood as being from anyone other than myself - I do not use the symbol for any other reason and have never had occasion to need it. I have simply made my edits over time as a Public Editor.

I believe you've manipulated the good will of Arnoutf and grossly mischaracterized my posts. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not canvas my talk page with unreadable copies/texts from other pages. I don't care who of you is right, only that you are fighting your personal grudges outside the official channels. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. shan't post here again regarding this matter. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I noticed your interests

Do they include social psychology, cultural nonverbal communication and the like? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Social psychology mainly. Arnoutf (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fitna

Dear Arnoutf,

Would you be so kind as to return to the Talk page and explain how the use of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment violates any and or all of the many policies you listed on the talk page? Many thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough request, I posted explanation. Arnoutf (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Faith Vandalism Welcome ?

All of my edits to the Painting article were made in good faith. At the top it says 'B-class article'. And something about lacking citations and notes ? And when I looked at the 'Talk page' I found there had been no discussion since last spring ? B-class article lacking citations and notes. I provided one referenced citation from a collection of Leonardo's texts on painting. Clearly relevant to the text, I would have thought. I was wrong, and can see that I should leave this to the better judgment of the owners of this encyclopedia. I also made a couple of changes to the images. I think the Daumier painting is of a too bad quality, and also an unnecessarily literal illustration. But perhaps the owners of this encyclopedia are the owners of that painting too. And I removed an unreferenced quote from the painter Julian Bell's book 'What is Painting ?'; wrongly attributed (in that same precious article) to the dead poet Julian Bell (1908-37) But who cares if it's a dead poet or a live painter ? Or about good faith ?
Sorry. ΑΩ (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

Welcome ? I don't feel much welcome here at all. ΑΩ (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC) But never mind. I'm well used to it. ΑΩ (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at the changes made to that page over the last year. And I found that the "Julian Bell quote" and the last message to the 'discussion page' was made the same day - 23 March 2007:

"Julian Bell (1908-37), a painter himself, examines in his book What is Painting? the historical development of the notion that paintings can express feelings and ideas: Let us be brutal: expression is a joke. Your painting expresses – for you; but it does not communicate to me. You had something in mind, something you wanted to ‘bring out’; but looking at what you have done, I have no certainty that I know what it was."

An unreferenced statement, presumably by the painter Julian Bell, author of the book "What is painting" ? But with a link to the page for the dead poet Julian Bell ? Well... I think I'll leave this mystery to you professionals. ΑΩ (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstanding / Citation in the Painting article

I just want to say I'm glad our misunderstanding was cleared up. And...

I'm not quite sure if this is the right place for it, but as it relates to my initial (and wrongly directed) reaction -

I've made some further research on the edit history of the citation I removed from that article... (It took me some time...) Until Revision as of 02:44, 23 March 2006 (User:Tyrenius) it looked like this:

A recent contribution to thinking about painting was offered by Julian Bell, in his book What is Painting?. A painter himself, Bell discusses the development, through history, of the notion that paintings can express feelings and ideas. The text is witty and sometimes caustic in order to make his points ("Let us be brutal: expression is a joke. Your painting expresses – for you; but it does not communicate to me. You had something in mind, something you wanted to ‘bring out’; but looking at what you have done, I have no certainty that I know what it was...").

After the edit made by Tyrenius it looked like this:

Julian Bell (1908-37), a painter himself, examines in his book What is Painting? the historical development of the notion that paintings can express feelings and ideas: Let us be brutal: expression is a joke. Your painting expresses – for you; but it does not communicate to me. You had something in mind, something you wanted to ‘bring out’; but looking at what you have done, I have no certainty that I know what it was.

And that is still the present version. (I may be replacing it with the original) I have not found out who actually put the full citation there in the first place. But I would say it most probably was done in fairly good faith. Some context was after all provided. However, removing the context and leaving the parenthesized quote... in good faith ? abiding by NPOV ? (On the Painting Talk page he even insisted that NPOV does not apply to 'source material', only to editors...) Surely, he must remember making that edit ? Troubling... Not sure what to do about this.

I'm glad though, that our misunderstanding was cleared up. And thanks for welcoming me. ΑΩ (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm difficult, I should have a look at the page, but it is a bit weird. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economic history of the Netherlands

You were quick off the mark with your assessment of Economic History of the Netherlands (1500 - 1815). It was hardly cold yet :-) I think I don't agree with your remarks. If you actually check the references, you'll see that I covered the paragraphs thoroughly. I don't think it is wise to pepper every other sentence with a reference if one reference at the end of a paragraph will do equally well (though I have referenced particular facts, if I thought they might provoke discussion) [Incidentally, did you notice that someone put a "needs references" template in your Windmill article? :-)]. I have considered using "Dutch Republic" in the title, instead of "The Netherlands", but I thought it essential to cover the Batavian Republic, and the period up to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, so I think giving the limiting years in the title provides the necessary delimitation. I am not sure what you mean by your remark on the lead. If you mean putting in an abstract of the article, I again disagree, but you may surprise me with an appropriate edit :-) Meanwhile, I realize there is more polishing to do. I think I'll give it a rest for a while though; it is too fresh in my mind.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The title 1500-1815 was the issue for the title. Lead can be a bit expanded per WP:LEAD. While I agree with not peppering, the whole pre revolt section has only 2, which I think are a few too few (btw yes refs are needed in the windmill thing). But to be honest, I did some maintenance yesterday and assessed about 20 articles in a row, and this one might have fallen to B equally likely (would be a weak B though due to issues mentioned). Arnoutf (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. I have expanded the lead section. I hope this is what you intended. I also have put a lot more references in the pre-Revolt and Golden Age sections, removed typos and hyphens, and added a few external links. I hope you like it better this way :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Good job... The lead is now rather too long than too short, but that is a detail. Upgrade to B level. Higher levels have different procedures. I think the article may develop into Good with some copyedit before that assessment will be succesfull; but Good level is not the task of a project (see WP:GAN WP:FAC). Arnoutf (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for revisiting the article quickly and of course for your pointers. I am not vying for a higher assessment; quite satisfied with your B. I do appreciate your trouble.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Romance-speaking states of Europe

Template:Romance-speaking states of Europe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.--DerRichter (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GroenLinks

Thanks for the offer. I hope to get the article up from B-class, preferably GA. I think the article in general could use a good proof reading/copy editing. The article still has a lot of typos, grammar mistakes, Dutch-English, but because I wrote (most of) it I can't see them anymore. It would be great if you could look at that! There are a few other issues we could look at in random order, from the top of my head:

  1. I would love an image like Image:SGP-stemmers per gemeente Tweede Kamer 2003.png, for the GreenLeft but I haven't got the software or the technical expertise to make it.
  2. The references on the provincial and municipal politics section are a bit thin.
  3. The article now has a picture for the leader in the TK, the EP and an alderwoman, a picture of Tof Thissen would be great.
  4. I think the electorate section could be expanded: young people, students, well-educated, the sixties generation are all more green, but I can't find good references.
  5. I don't particularly like how I templated most of the citations, but it is the best I could get out of the templates.
  6. The article currently has a lot of red links. Some of those articles, on first instance the senators, party chairs or former MPs could easily be written.

Again thanks for the offer. Any help is welcome! C mon (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC) BTW I'm Dutch as well, and a GreenLeft member

Sorry have not come around to do anything, finally spring so not much computer time this weekend :-)
Re:1. My graphics skills are limited as well.....
Re:2. Good point, will be a primary sources issue though, pulling it from GL websites
Re:3. I'll have a look for a senator image (Britta Böhler might be possible too). (I agee with Marijke Vos who is the most high profile alderperson we currently have)
Re:4 I'll try; but I am not sure whether after the fact PD sources of this data exist. We could look at "polling bureaus", "NOS" or "GreenLeft" itself.
Re:5 I'll have a look at the citations when doing a copyedit read-through. I know something about citations (psychology style) but philosophy and history; or natural sciences tend to be very different. It will always be a compromise......
Re:6 I noticed that, and I don't like the red links much. Sometimes it is better not to wikilink than to Wikilink to nonexistent (red) articles. We should always consider notability in international context before starting articles. I would rather link to Dutch articles, or remove the Wikilink at all than make up some unnotable articles. (But that is my opinion).
Anyway, ~I'll try to make some time for this soon; but real-life is busy too. Arnoutf (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert Princess Máxima of the Netherlands

Wow, you're fast! Ghehe, I also wanted to revert the edit about nationality. However, when I wanted to save the page I saw that you were already before me :-)) Demophon (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes happens, had it before as well ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Arnout...I got your name,etc. from a Dutch language talk/'argument" regarding Dutch and Afrikaans. I'm new at this so I apologize if this manner of contact is problematic. Maybe you can assist me in getting my feet wet. I have set up a user page. thank you..````;-)````Buster7````

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Names for Dutch Language

Would the addition of "Perhaps" to the initial sentance be an acceptable edit??--Buster7 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I hardly understand the opening sentence, so I guess most edits to that line are an improvement. Arnoutf (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re - on Village pump

Thank you for your kind response, Arnoutf.

I believe proving anyone that I´m not related to the company is to say the least quite difficult: (you may want to check my ip number and kviar.com´s maybe?)

However, the fact that I´m spending my time asking beforehand instead of just posting (as I´m sure several companies do) must prove I´m really in good faith.

Finally, please do check if the text I´ll send is somewhat biased, and if it looks then feel more than free to delete it.

If all that looks reasonable with the community I´ll go ahead: please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks again! :)


You are now asking for advice on notability of the company. However, from your question I guess you are in some way linked to the company. That immediately flags up other concerns such as potential conflict of interest and neutrality of your point of view. If you think you are fine with all those guidelines, please go ahead. If you make all of these judgments in good faith and there are doubts nevertheless you can at worst expect that the article will be nominated for deletion. Arnoutf (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No need, I just stated that "if" you were affiliated to the company there are other issues besides notability to take into account. Even an editor who is affiliated with a subject (many are) can make good contributions, but judging neutrality is an issue in such cases. Basically, if you trust yourself to be fair, I would trust you (under WP:AGF). I would say edit quality speaks louder than affiliation anytime (and to be honest I have no idea how to check IP's anyway, I'll leave that to the whizkids). Arnoutf (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] here´s the future post: thanks! :)

Thank you for your good faith: below is the text I´ll publish.

I beg you to let me know if there´s anything that may be off the lines and I thank you once again for your kind help:

Kviar is a a specialty retailer which started as an online music distributor. The company has been in business since 1999 and is headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Founded in 1999 by Alvaro de Castro (pioneer of the Internet in Brazil: wrote the first book on e-commerce in Brazil in 1997), its history and focus are similar to the U.S. retailer chain "The Sharper Image", which started as a Xerox company and gradually changed its focus to retailing innovative goods.

Kviar began as an online system for discovery and sales of music from unknown musicians. At its peak, the website (http://www.kviar.com) had over 20 thousand songs from over 3 thousand musicians, allowing people to build customized radios, burn CDs online, etc. For that it closed a deal in January 2003 with US Company Immediatek, Inc. (OTCBB:IMDK) for its "Netburn" technology, which allowed the website visitors to choose which tracks to burn online using their own CD burners.

Later in that year the company developed a customized CD burning kiosk that allowed anyone to choose from the company´s catalogue, pay with bills as with a regular coffee machine, and receive the CD in minutes.

The company then ran a road-show for various investors from Sand Hill Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Hill_Road), but the lack of knowledge on VC´s on the music industry, and the lack of interest from record labels on anything to do with the internet forced the company to gradually change its focus to the retail of chinese imports.

Today the company sells innovative goods through its website (http://www.kviar.com) (which represent close to 60% of the total company revenue), retail stores, and a 1-800 system. The company claims to be the single dotcom in Brazil using an SMS system to keep the customer updated on anything to do with their orders such as payment, delivery, password, the status of their request, and so on.

At the end of 1997 the company opened its first physical store and started a franchise system.


External Links Kviar website http://www.kviar.com

Immediatek Licenses CD Burning Technology to Brazilian Music Company http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/software-services-applications-internet-audio/5693984-1.html

Kviar Sees Custom CD Kiosks All over Brazil. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5932/is_200308/ai_n23872541 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcosta (talk • contribs) 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ok, I published the article

you can see it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kviar

it still needs polishing: I´m working on that

Let me know if it needs something to be more "wikable"

Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcosta (talk • contribs) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tweede Kamer

So, Cohen would have become PM when the PvdA would lose, but nevertheless form a coalition, and someone else (presumably Bos) would become PM when the PvdA would become the largest party? It does not sound quite likely to me. Ucucha 17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It was something like that though. Prior to election the combinaton CDA-PvdA was not so obvious; while there was long an option for a left-liberal combination PvdA-GreenLeft-SP (and D66). As Bos was the center of the PvdA campaign; he stated he would be happy to take up PM if they won; but would see it as a personal defeat if they lost, in which case he would not become PM. It is only mentioned here because that would indeed have been less common. Arnoutf (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you for clarifying. However, I think it would be good to add a reference to verify this, as there may be more people like me who would think that it is erroneous. Ucucha 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree a statment that is counterintuitive needs a reference. Arnoutf (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you be able to provide one? Ucucha 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European Parliament groups

We are trying to find consensus on the "leftist issue". Do you prefer "Communists and Far-left Socialists" or "Communists and Far-left"? You can state your preference in talk page. --Checco (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelfout in Dutchparlseats2.png

Wist je dat er een spelfout op je (overigens zeer huldenswaardige) plaatje Dutchparlseats2.png staat? In de kop staat "parlaiment", dat moet "parliament" zijn. Captain Chaos (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, never come around to correcting and updating that. Arnoutf (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Financial history

It is a good thing I don't do it for the assessments. Why not make it stub class :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] A Call to Civility

If I could, let me make a point about my recent "undo's". I really do appreciate you attempts to "clean up the mess". But, the only way to end the joke is not to repeat it. The point I'd like you to consider is that everytime Richard has a chance he says "Belgians are ________"... My talk, edits summaries, discussions, etc. That is at the heart of my position. To me its like mindless, malicious gossip over the back fence. I respect your edits, your comments, your talk. It is no coincidence that you were the first to greet me. I consider it my luck!!!--Buster7 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of emotion researchers

Re this edit, I agree that notability is not established by an article on Wikipedia. It is established by coverage by reliable sources. At present, there are no sources in that section to indicate that the people on that list are notable. Technically, per WP:V, the whole list could then be removed. Instead, I removed only the redlinks, since I figured that the fact that the others had Wikipedia articles was probably an indicator, though not an absolute one, of notability. I'm not going to involve myself further in that section, in part because you clearly know more about the subject than I do and I trust you to effectively maintain the contents of that list, but I'd encourage you to add some refs to that section when you get a chance, so that future outside editors like me can distinguish between list members who are notable, and those who are vanity-additions. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I appreciate your idea, I agree it needs to be cleaned out, but some of the blue links are not notable either and James Russell (redlink) is more important than several of those. I started a thread on the talk page to try sort it out. Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

How do you pronounce Eerbeek, please? Because, we would like to write an article on it in Arabic wp. Thank you. --DrFO.Jr.Tn (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not expert in phonetics but in English it would be something like Ayrbayk - Arnoutf (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)