User talk:Arnoutf/Archives/2014
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Arnoutf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Warning. Vandalism.
Hi Arnoutf. I am writting to you warning your missuse of TW. You use it arbitarily becuase you abuse of it. It is not enough to revert seven editions by only saying "Conqueror is not a function or a period". What does that means to you? Be polite. Next time I will put you a denounce for vandalism and unproper use of TW. Yours. --Inesbugsbunnyines (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Do not be absurd. You revert without any edit summaries to extremely poor English and biased content; putting that in can be considered vandalism, taking it out not. Arnoutf (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Please avoid vandalism and the use of TW
Dear Arnoutf. You always pretend to have reasons to make modifications on my contributions on the article about Fernando Álvarez de Toledo. Why do you think that apposition "who was famous as an excellent general and enjoyed enormous popularity in command of the troops," is not acceptable? I don not think so. At the end of his life Alba was considered the most important general of the Spanish Monarchy and also was the most popular capitan general of his time. Why can´t you accept that? Remember that the --Inesbugsbunnyines (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Kingdom of Portugal was conquered by general Alba who had the command of the Spanish army designed by the King Philip II. Yours.
- This is the first time that you actually tried to discuss your edits. However please discuss content topics on the talk page of the relevant article. Arnoutf (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Arnoutf, I have asked Ground Zero to protect the Fernando Álvarez de Toledo article, since Inesbugsbunnyines has not seen fit to use the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikiproject European Parliament on nl-wiki
Hey Arnoutf
Just to let you know there is a Wikiproject European Parliament (nl:Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Europees_Parlement) on the dutch wikipedia. --PJ Geest (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
WWII new material review
Ok, the new text, images and reference are posted on the talk page. Please review. --Factor01 (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Quality of the WWII Article; only 57% reader rating - a comment to Nick-D
a comment to Nick-D I'd like to raise a significant issue regarding the WWII article. Please, I hope you get it… I hope you really get it. The sad reality is that the much visited WWII article sucks, and you are the main administrator of it. It's not simply my opinion, look at the reader feed back that's only at 57% approval rating, for an article regarding one of the most important events in human history. Lets look at some of the comments:
- 96.49.155.27 I 1 year ago | Details | This article doesn't tell the harrasing the Japenese have done to the Chinese! It is largely in the Japanese's favour! So Biased!
- 71.31.122.130 | 1 year ago | Details | How, why, where, who started it; make it more clear for people to read easier.
- 101.172.255.233 | 6 months ago | Details | it needs more pictures
- 98.200.49.217 | 1 year ago | Details | this article needs a real timeline
- 71.101.43.139 | 7 months ago | Details | more pictures :)
- 67.252.155.76 | 8 months ago | Details | This page needs more about the soldier's who fought in the war.
- 81.153.90.55 | 11 months ago | Details | things about women and children during the war
- 174.75.126.227 | 1 year ago | Details | Who are the Big Four?
- 68.119.136.115 | 1 year ago | Details | talk about how the children of the war were affected
- 182.68.158.51 | 1 year ago | Details Role of India in WW2
- 86.141.217.60 | 11 months ago | Details | More pictures/diagrams needed for occupation section.
So, when I added photos of various, military insignia, troops and wrote insightful photo captions to help and illustrate the events better; you show up and complain! Yet, clearly the readers feel that things are really lacking in this article. Well, it's on you MATE… wake up. You are the big boss in charge, that's screwing it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factor01 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do not canvas my talk page with stuff that should not be here. Arnoutf (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, so what items are you in favor of... you said "most" that means something you agree with? Is that correct? Maybe, what I'm trying to do is wake some of you admins up… obviously the article is not up to par; yet in a condescending tone you reject most propositions, just as Nick-D rejected my earlier edit which included military insignia, diverse pictures of Indian, Filipino, and Soviet combatant; and detailed image captions. Things that readers complained about not having. Just look at my comment on talk page from 13:15, 4 February 2014. when no admin gave a damn about contributing when I first made the suggestions! --Factor01 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- (1) I only discuss content on the relevant talk page
- (2) That an article is not perfect (non are) is no excuse to add low quality / irrelevant content as that will make the article only worse. Arnoutf (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, well any comment on the three pictures up for addition. Any input? --Factor01 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Stop putting annoying stuff on my talk page. If anything that will irritate me and make me object your suggestions rather than support them. I will give comments if and when I like so and will do that without your prompts. Arnoutf (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
GDP (PPP)
The GDP (PPP) of the European Union in 2013 is US$16.214 trillion. The GDP (PPP) of the United States in 2013 is US$16.724 trillion. Hence, the US has a larger economy than the EU in GDP (PPP) terms. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2010&ey=2013&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=72&pr1.y=17&c=111&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CPPPSH%2CLP&grp=0&a= Ryopus (talk) 29:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but that can only be derived from either providing a link to both sources, or by providing a reliable secondary source that makes the claim. The link you copy in my talk for example only gives the point estimate for the US, not the comparison. Arnoutf (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Flat earth myth
Hello sir. In the article Flat earth myth some religious people try to prove that during Middle ages the people knew that Earth is Sphere. It's very weird article. So please take part in discussion of this subject if you have time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth#The_Treaty_of_Tordesillas_and_contradiction_to_this_article). The entire article is based on reserces of one man (someone called Russel), and I guess it s not correct information there. Thanks in advance. 46.70.190.130 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Athens emblem
Dear Arnoutf At the section of the big metropolitan cities of European Union here (template) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Largest_urban_centers_of_the_European_Union Athens has a remark on its emblem in addition to the existing emblem of the city. Im not very good on editing so I would like if you have some time to put the emblem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Athens_seal.png Thanks in advance! Kostas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athenian823 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
EU
Everyone can have a different opinion on this topic (superpower) but to remove data with the sources must to be clear consensus to this. It is not easy: you want so remove. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I said before, this is mainly about nothing in the lede that is not also in the larger article. Arnoutf (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- In fact WP:LEAD is clear. It states "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". So either there is a section on superpower state in the article (it is not!) or there is no mention in the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Considering your last edit to European Union (reverting my edit): "No mistake, Florence not Rome was Italies capital of culture." The picture then has to be changed, as it obviously depicts Colosseum in ROME.SyaWgnignahCehT (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, the Colosseum makes no sense. Arnoutf (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Opinion
Hi, i would like to have your opinion about a discussion which i started here, thank.Kingroyos (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Social Psychology
I did add the replication crisis section to the social psychology page. Please feel free to hack away at it. I haven't covered Bem's study here and a lot of your excellent suggestions. StoneProphet11 (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| For your hard work in the project. M.Karelin (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
NOR guidance
Hello: The change I made came about during my discussion at User_talk:Kingofaces43#Primary_sources. Since my Bold change didn't work out, I hope better minds can help clarify. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- No problem.
- In my view the current line "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." is clear enough
- The problem with your edit was that while it clearly aimed to clarify the phrase "a scientific research paper (that is a primary research paper)" implies that all scientific research papers are primary research papers. Literature review and meta-analyses are however still scientific research papers, but not primary.
- In the current text that difference is made by the phrase "documenting a new experiment conducted by the author" - and that distinction disappears through your addition. I have no easy solution however. Arnoutf (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You are correct
I was going to revert my own revert but you beat me to it. I'm tired and I totally misread the sentence the first time. Good catch. My bad. --AntHerder (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Arnoutf (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I see with this diff you rated the article as start, with an edit summary of "lacking inline referencing for C" - not to quibble but ... what is lacking inline referencing? THe first "paragraph" is unreferened - it's the lead. Then there is exactly 5 sentences without citations on them directly, but each of those five is referenced to the next footnote, which is the common convention. Heck, even the footnotes are cited! You might want to reconsider the rating a bit in light of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Assessment. Thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I rated two articles as start in a row. I rerated one that was fairly similar that had been set at C by others and copied the edit summary to that one by error into this one.
- Nevertheless I do think it is a start level for several reasons though as it is not close to complete, e.g. has several one sentence paragraphs etc. Also there are several mistakes (eg office is from 120something while he died before 1200). Arnoutf (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to National day of mourning may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ], 1 day) <ref>http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/3834822/woensdag-23-juli-dag-van-nationale-rouw.html}</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia article: Europe
Arnoutf: Thankyou for your constructive and helpful edit. I don't claim by any means to have a perfect grasp of this complex and sometimes contentious subject, so I'm always willing to accept feedback and correction of the type you offer. Earlier this month, I had the misfortune to lock horns with another editor who simply hits the revert button anytime he sees anything he doesn't agree with, offering no explanation except when I force it from him, and no attempt to help out or improve the article in any way. It seems to be a basic problem with the subject of this article that there's little that can be said about the basic nature of Europe that isn't POV; particlarly when itcomes to the 6 continent versus the 7 continent models. A few years ago, this article took a bit broader perspective by suggesting Europe could be considered either a continent in its own right in cultural terms, or as a subcontinent of Eurasia in physiographic terms. When I tried to revive that concept earlier this month, and even provided a few references, this other editor simply did his auto-revert thing (references and all!), then threw what I took to be a mini-tantrum when I showed a little persistence. But it seems to me if this article takes a totally one-sided view in favor of the 7 continent model, it ends up contradicting other related Wikipedia articles, especially "Eurasia" and "Subcontinent" So I'm wondering if you support any attempt to restore a broader perpective to this article, or whether you prefer to stick with the purity of the 7 continent model. Do you have any sense of what other contributing (as opposed to reverting) editors of this article think about this? Many thanks!User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 23:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry but I am not that regular an editor on this specific article, so don't know the details. I also don't know enough of physiography to know whether boundaries like Caucasus, Ural and Black Sea would count on that scale. So sorry, can't really help there. Arnoutf (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux
|
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Ricardo Ferreira
Hi Arnoutf, please note that this Ricardo Ferreira (who plays in Portugal) is a different player than the one that got banned for 50 years (who plays for Portugal Futebol Clube in the fourth level of Switzerland). Thanks, ElfjeTwaalfje (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually his clubs full name is Futebol Clube Paços de Ferreira, so that suggests it is indeed the same person. But indeed I probably mixed it up with a Swiss based futebol clube (why would it be named liked that??). Thanks for correcting Arnoutf (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
European Union
Why you edit? the larges cities are London and Berlin, and not Paris.. Paris is the second metropolitan area, and not city!--8Sirlo6 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Read the discussion before editing. Cities are defined different in different countries; so city proper is an utterly useless measure. The city of London has less than 10,000 inhabitants; yet nobody argues to use that number. Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
"City of London" is only a storic and administrative district of city, like "Ile de la Citè" in Paris, "Centro Storico" in Rome, or "Centro" in Madrid, ecc...
Every Union-European knows that:
- the largest city for population are
- 1) London (8,5 mil)
- 2) Berlin (3,6 mil)
- 3) Madrid (3,3 mil)
- 4) Rome (2,9 mil)
- 5) Paris (2,2 mil)
- the largest city for areas are:
- 1) London (1.572 kmq)
- 2) Rome (1.285 kmq)
- 3) Berlin (892 kmq)
- 4) Madrid (607 kmq)
- the largest city for population of urban area are London, Paris, Madrid, Milan and Barcelona
- the largest city for population of metropolitan region are:
- 1) Greater London Authority (21 mill),
- 2) Paris (12 mil.)
- 3) Rihne-Ruhr (12 mil)
- 4) Milan (9 mill)
- 5) Randstad (7 mill)
- 6) Madrid (6,5 mil)
--8Sirlo6 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- (1) Topical discussion on the topic article site please
- (2) Everyone knows the moon is made out of Swiss cheese. In other words - reliable source. Also your statement is obviously not true as I am from the EU.
- (3) There is only one London city (inhab 7300). The larger London city is not a formal city so should not be counted as such, if you demand on using the term city. If you do however allow broader definitions of cities, there is no good reason to limit Paris to the formal city lines (Ile de Paris has never been all of Paris, while city of London used to be all of London).
- (4)You can one-to-one compare cities across countries, as much as you can one-to-one (that is without conversion factor) compare distances in miles to those in km; city definitions differ across countries and hence they simply cannot be compared (look at discussion for a lot of reliable sourced reasons why not) Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
“Greater London” has a mayor exactly like “Roma Capitale”, “Land of Berlin”, and like “Ville de Paris” and “Ayuntamiento de Madrid”. I don't write certainly the two thousand existing sources here, than they find everywhere, and however the text says “largest cities”: if we wants maintain Paris, we must changes in “largest urban areas”, or join greater London, Land of Berlin, Ayuntamiento de Madrid, and Roma Capitale before Ville de Paris.--8Sirlo6 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please write on the article talk page, not here. Arnoutf (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Signing
Your signing of this and this comment didn't work properly. You might wish to re-sign them. Stickee (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 06:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)