User talk:Arnoutf/Archive2007 4

EU

Hi arnouf. I shall have a look at the source again, though I have read it three time. however I did not consider that it supported the existing edit in the article. What version would you consider is appropriate? Perhaps you could point out where it does not support my edit? Sandpiper 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further to above, I have responded in more detail on the EU chat page. No, I was not considering the guardian ref at all but that from Dublin university. Thank you for your example, but your criticism of the content was against content that BHL, myself and you all reinserted into the article. Sandpiper 18:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want comment here again to refresh the state of being? : [1], [2], [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.6.74 (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you very much for your assistance at this article's talkpage over the last couple months. We are still having a bit of a stalemate at the article though, so if you have time, I was wondering if you could offer another opinion? I have created a subpage in my userspace where I have rewritten the article from top to bottom, shrinking it down from 167K to a little less than 70K, removing some of the unreliable sources and less relevant information, splitting other sections out to more appropriate articles, and most importantly, trying to smooth out the writing so as not to give undue weight to certain POVs. My rewritten version of the article is currently at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I've announced it at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite, but because this is such an obscure subject, it's really been very difficult to prove that there is consensus for the new version. If you have a few minutes, could you please look over the rewrite, and offer an opinion on it? I am very open to making changes, but I'm in a situation where I basically have one editor (PHG) who keeps saying "no," and no one else seems to want to comment and help break the stalemate. We've been trying mediation for the last month, but without success, and even our mediator appears to have gone AWOL, with no posts for over a week now. I would very much like to find a way to move forward through this dispute without having to further escalate it towards ArbCom, and it's my genuine hope that if we could just get some more editors actually commenting there to prove a consensus, it could help a great deal. Any assistance appreciated, El on ka 17:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnoutf, regarding your recent comment at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, I have to admit some bafflement. Your comment implied some frustration that you weren't allowed to edit the article, but to my knowledge, the only things that you ever changed, were to once adjust a reference list, and to disambiguate a link. In my opinion, this dispute would have gone away quickly, if other editors did edit the article! If you have some change that you would like to implement, please, by all means do so. You are welcome to edit at my draft subpage at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance, and/or I would actively welcome any critique on it. --El on ka 19:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the miscommunication. I tracked the article for a while, but lack of knowledge on my side made me not editing. The ongoing edit war is just sad, as I think the topic is a good idea. 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Your absence does sadden me, as I was hoping that you could help break the deadlock. I see by your userboxes that you have experience in actual publishing in peer-reviewed publications. What I see as the main problem at the Franco-Mongol alliance, is that we have an editor (PHG) who has consistently rejected peer review, and is insisting on publishing his own version of history. The answer to this kind of situation on Wikipedia, is to try and get more peers into the loop. I do understand your desire to simply withdraw from the situation (I have felt that way too), but if you genuinely want to help, the best thing that you can do is, well, be a peer, and offer review. :) If you have an opportunity to read my draft subpage article, and then comment at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite, it would be helpful. Do you like my rewrite? Do you think it's too short? Too long? Is it confusing? Is it boring? Do you think it's wrong? Do you think it would better serve Wikipedia to have my rewrite in place of the current "live" article? Really, any opinions at all would be helpful. :) --El on ka 20:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ME/CVS Vereniging

In view of your many contributions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands, please consider the following. ME/CVS Vereniging (ME/CFS Association) is one of the three patient organizations for Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis and post-viral fatigue syndrome in the Netherlands. The deleted article now is at deletion review. The references are in a foreign language and an issue at DRV is whether there was enough reference material independent of ME/CVS Vereniging's control or anyone associated with ME/CVS Vereniging to create a Wikipedia article. Please consider participating in that DRV to assist in determining whether the references are independent from ME/CVS Vereniging or in some way connected to ME/CVS Vereniging. -- Jreferee t/c 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits.

POV edits are wrong who ever does them, stop it. SouthernElectric 16:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree that your edits are POV pushing against consensus. Arnoutf 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there was no consensus. SouthernElectric (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you want to comment this [4]. Lear 21 01:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello,

I've caught - User_talk:193.130.87.58 - vandalising.

I notice you gave him a final warning, so don't know where you go from here?

His 'edit' can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaffa_Cakes&diff=172484129&oldid=172160557

Thanks --Gavinio (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that is the next step you can report the user to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. I think another last warning is better placed though, as it maybe an entirely different editor (tends to happen with IPs) and the last vandalism was already in August. You can use the warning templates Arnoutf (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 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 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU sports section vote

You are either for the motion (as written) or you are not - a simple yes or no - please do NOT add anything else, this is NOT a discussion. As for weasel words, LOL, there is no more weasel words in a vote as "Yes, but..."! SouthernElectric 10:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, all the "such as" words ARE weasel words as they are a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement. Putting up a dual statement: "(A) Leave as is AND (B) ask for review", is problematic as you can only give YES if you agree with both A and B, formal logic requires to answer no in all other cases; even if you agree with one of the statements, hence giving partial support is only softening what otherwise should be no. Of course I may have misread and it should have been "Leave as is to provide stable version for review" in that case, Yes I agree; so I creatively read as such in my revote.Arnoutf 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only place 'such' is used is to describe the fact of a future review - "Should the sports section be left as it is now (as in the currently locked version) and the consensus of an independent review regarding the merit of the whole or part of the said sports section be obtained and any such independent review be binding on the future permissible content of the article" - how else would you describe a fact that will but has yet to take place? SouthernElectric 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was not referring to the proposal but to the sports section itself. I quote: "This followed lobbying by governing organisations such as the International Olympic Committee and FIFA, due to objections over the applications of free market principles to sport which led to an increasing gap between rich and poor clubs.[159] Several European sports associations are consulted in the formulation of the EU's sports policy, including FIBA, UEFA, EHF, IIHF, FIRA and CEV.[160] All EU member states and their respective national sport associations are participating in European sport organizations such as UEFA.[161]". Arnoutf 11:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way of St James, Santiago de Compostela

Any comments on this ?--Filll (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you object to working in the name of the Way of St. James in Latin? I ran across it in a few sources, and it might be relevant, although I am not sure it belongs in the list at the end of the article.--Filll (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing of the sports section

Please don't copy-edit (spelling mistakes aside, I suppose) the sport section, doing so as likely to just re open old wounds / arguments - alternate words is as good as normal editing as context etc. can be altered. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that argument is sounding a bit hollow. The agreement for review is over a week old and no action has been taken. Either the review is started soon or editing should be allowed, the section cannot remain locked indefinitely waiting for a review that may never come. Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to your comment on the article talk page. SouthernElectric (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU semi protection

Maybe you want to support this [5]. Lear 21 (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merit for outstanding contributions

		The Barnstar of European Merit
		I hereby award you Arnoutf The Barnstar of European Merit for contributions to the EU article and your diplomatic stance at the EU talk forum throughout the year 2007. Lear 21 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
		_{this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~}

Merry Christmas, Frohe Weihnachten and a Happy New Year. Lear 21 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lear, merry Christmas to you as well Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betuweroute

Hi Arnoutf,

I agree with most of your criticism, but that means spending a lot of time indeed! It is good to have other people take a critical look at your edits, but I am not going to do much work on the Betuweroute in any foreseeable future. Before this edit, I knew nearly nothing about trains or the Betuweroute, and having no special interest in trains or transport, I only reworked and extended the article because it was an eyesore. I think I have spent more than enough time on researching. There are so many other articles that need a good brushing, especially on the Dutch Wikipedia, so spending my time there will be more fruitful.

The style of the wiki looks fine to me, so perhaps I have a blind spot here, and surely a native English speaker could do better. Someone else could better see to that aspect. Maybe you could be more specific on how I could improve my style. Oh, and do you encounter my stubby style in this message too, or is it just the Wiki?

Returning to the Betuweroute: The list of municipalities along the line is not mine, and I can't see any sense in it. Being a newbee on Wikipedia, I am not too eager to scrap someone else's work, that is the only reason why it is still there. If you think the list should be axed, I will be glad to do so. Rewriting it to a compact table is another option, but I would prefer deletion. Suggestions for other minor updates are welcome, and I will keep your advice in mind when working on this article and others to come.

By the way, you may enjoy my tompouce-wiki, albeit just start-level or lower. B222 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but it still is start level. If someone else improves all the better. Arnoutf (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 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) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thankyou for your contributions. Kazuba (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion; I am honoured to be thought worth the responsibility. At the moment I will not be frequent enough on Wiki to go through the RfA procedure, which requires substantial tracking. And to be honest I do not truly need the admin extra powers for the type of editing I am doing at the moment. So for now, I think I decline this offer; thanks again though.Arnoutf (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 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) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

		The Secret Page Detective Award
		Congratulations on finding my secret page! However, the message you left me leads me to believe that you did what i known as cheating. Can you redeem yourself by finding the Super Secret page, or even the Extra-Hidden Super Duper Secret Page, the old-fashioned way - by searching the pages for secret links or special messages? Yes, that is a challenge. Skittlesrgood4u (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 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) 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EU introduction

Please do not introduce false claims like " much of the EU functioning" etc. anymore . Lear 21 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I reverted an edit that went against concensus reached. The onus is on you to show the falsehood of the claim now. Arnoutf (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references concerning the accurate description of the intergov/supranat balance has been given. TWICE ! Lear 21 (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A random source does not make a reference; not even when it is given twice. Arnoutf (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in question refutes the claim that the EU is supranational. I went through it in detail on the the chat page, quoting from it. (assuming it is the one Lear posted on the talk page from the europa glossary) I have asked him to produce a better ref supporting his POV, but he has not. Sandpiper (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to post a different query, with regard to your proposed intro. You suggest a version which does not explain intergovernmental and supranational. This contradicts the style guide on writing intros, which Lear drew to my attention. This says:

In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.

So basically, we should use the form agreed previously (or something with the same effect) which includes a definition of the terms. It is not accepted practice to use words which will not be understood, unless they are explained at the same time. There is more in the guides, basically saying the intro must be straightforward and easy to understand, as well as a complete description of the subject in itself. Sandpiper (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, my suggestion was quickly put togehter based on the current version after Lears mutulation of the consensus; sorry for any confusion. Arnoutf (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Empire

Hello Arno! Have you heard Barosso? He said .. EU is the .. the first non-imperial empire.. so, still an Empire--AtomAtom (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utrecht (city)

I am just trying to follow WP:V. If you think that the information can be sourced, that's fine. But you need to provide sources, and until you can do so, use an "underconstruction" template so that other users can understand that the article still under major rework and not finished. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]