User talk:Bmwz3hm/Archive 1

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Willem Buiter has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Willem Buiter was changed by Bmwz3hm (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.892192 on 2014-03-26T11:43:28+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Heleen Mees ‎

Hi. I get the impression that you may have a conflict of interest in regard to the article on Heleen Mees. Normally that would be a problem, but given the current proceedings, it currently raises greater concerns. Given that, it would be best if you were not to edit the article of that concerning Willem Buiter directly - you are very welcome to make suggestions on the discussion pages, but direct editing creates a particular problem where conflicts of interest are concerned. In regard to content, I think it best if we just leave it with the basic claims of the court case and that it is now set for dismissal - if we start venturing into explaining the details of the case, the back and forth claims are likely to make it the focus of the article, which would then lessen the significance of Heleen Mees' other accomplishments. - Bilby (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, that Buiter was embroiled in a matter because he was accused of contacting Heleen Mees was not my invention. Look it up in history. I still think that only mentioning the accusations on Willem Buiter's page without mentioning that all charges are set for dismissal is not very balanced. The dismissal of the charges is a fact, not an opinion or an allegation. Best.

By the way, Buiter himself has admitted that he sent Mees the LinkedIn request. So I think it is relevant information.

I agree that mentioning that the case is set for dismissal makes sense. I strongly disagree with mentioning further allegations. The problem is that, to be fair, we should therefore also include the conditions for the dismissal to be met, and any other allegations that may have been raised against Mees and Buiter. But once we move down that path, the section will rapidly grow. As a compromise, its seems reasonable to just state that the case is set to be dismissed, not include any of the conditions, and leave out further allegations. Would that work? - Bilby (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That seems a fine solution for Willem Buiter's page. Buiter's allegations are now topic of a civil case, but no need to mention that until anything has been decided.

I think that should hold for both articles. I don't feel that it is in the interests of either party to extend the coverage to include additional allegations. A simple statement that a court case was started and is set for dismissal seems sufficient. - Bilby (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Otherwise both articles should refer to the civil case, to make Mees position clear that she was subjected to a false arrest based on Buiter's false allegations.

In that case I'll raise the issue on the biographies of living people noticeboard. I think we need some alternative views here. - Bilby (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I also understand your position.

On another note, I don't understand the warning message at the start of the article about using bare URLs for citations. Isn't that issue solved? Do you know what to do? °RUmarAbbasi (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Your recent editing history at Heleen Mees shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You have reverted 3 times, you are one more revert away from a violation. -- Atama頭 15:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Much appreciated. Bmwz3hm (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This is another, and final warning... Do not edit-war on Heleen Mees (or anywhere else). You held off on edit-warring for a couple of days to avoid violating 3RR, but even so to engage in an edit war at all (reverting people rather than discussing your disagreement with editors) is prohibited. There is a discussion begun at the article talk page, seen here, in response to the edit war. You've been asked multiple times (by myself and your opponent in the edit war) to take the dispute there, but have yet to do so. Revert again before engaging in the discussion (and resolving it there) and I will block you. -- Atama頭 19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand this. The opponent changes the entire text, and then tells me to have a discussion on the talk page? And I do the edit warring? Bmwz3hm (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The other editor made several edits, explaining each one with an edit summary, which is what is expected. Your reversions have either been absent of summaries or simply argumentative. That's edit warring so you need to discuss. For the record, I've reviewed the edits made by that editor and they seem reasonable. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm just undid all of other users' edits, again with no edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=605257860&oldid=605244004 --TheCockroach (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep ganging up on Mees. The fact that the photo, which Epa released under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license, has been removed time and again proves that Wikipedia just serves as a platform for men to take women down. Bmwz3hm (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

To be blunt, that's absolute rubbish. The image was deleted for quite appropriate reasons, firstly because it was a copyright violation and then a second and third time because the licensing terms were unnaceptable, as explained in the deletion discussion.[1][2] --AussieLegend (✉) 09:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Willem Buiter

Hi. I think we need to work out a way forward given that you appear to have a conflict of interest in regard to Heleen Mees and, by extension, Willem Buiter. My major concern there is Buiter. You haven't edited the article lately, so this may not be an issue, but in future you'll need to avoid editing the article directly. I've no problems with you raising concerns on the talk page, but someone else will need to make direct edits. In regard to the Heleen Mees article, I get the impression that you would be unwilling to stand back completely, and I understand your reluctance to do so. SO I won't say that you can't edit it, but I recommend that you try to limit yourself to minor edits, and instead make recommendations on the talk page. We may need to revisit this in the future, but I'm hoping it will be less of an issue once the case is settled. - Bilby (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I see. You did not get support for your position on the biographies board and now I'm the problem. Doesn't make sense to me.Bmwz3hm (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't get a response, rather than didn't get support. I'm not asking you to refrain from editing completely. But I don't think it is in anyone's interests right now if you directly edit Willem Buiter, given the current situation. The conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages people who have a conflict of interest from directly editing the articles where a COI exists, and my recommendations above are very much in keeping with the guideline. - Bilby (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Bmwz3hm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24 hours). Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 09:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• You were warned only 11 hours prior to this revert that if you reverted the article again, without discussion, that you would be blocked. Your latest reversion is grossly inappropriate. Not only was it made without any explanation, but it restored an image that has been deleted multiple times for very valid reasons. This is unacceptable conduct. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Heleen Mees. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding that the primary reason for your block is edit warring. However, some other problems have been pointed out that you should heed. Making personal attacks is unacceptable; comment on the content, not the person. Above all else, please learn how to engage in discussion on the article talk page once you know something is disputed. Don't continue to edit war during the discussion. Participate, discuss, and respect consensus. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I (Bmwz3hm (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)) believe that there is a clash of cultures here. In the Netherlands Heleen Mees’ opinions about women in the workplace may have been seen as provocative, but in the United States and most other countries the views of Heleen Mees are simply mainstream. Journalists from The New York Times (Katrin Bennhold) and The Atlantic (Sharon Lerner) did interview Heleen Mees in the past about her views on women’s issues, but Mees' opinions never made it into any newspaper article because they are considered nothing out of the ordinary in the United States. If you look at Heleen Mees’ bibliography, you can see that she only wrote 2 English pieces about women’s issues, from a list of more than 50 publications (see below). The first article deals with women on corporate boards, the second with outlawing prostitution. Both articles fit well in a European trend at the time and can hardly be considered provocative, now or then. To summarize Heleen Mees work based on these 2 pieces, which are already more than 6 years old, seems wholly unbalanced to me. The original text of the Heleen Mees article devotes a paragraph to Mees’ successful lobby for more women on corporate boards in the Netherlands in 2006 - 2008, which is just about right in light of the above.

Does the content of the entire Heleen Mees article really depend on what one Dutchman (Theobald Tiger) knows Heleen Mees most for? Bmwz3hm (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

BIBLIOGRAPHY HELEEN MEES:

Forthcoming Bekaert, Geert and Heleen Mees. 2014. Housing Bubbles and the Dutch Disease. (Working Paper).

Mees, Heleen. 2013. NY Service Economy - A Template for a Future Suburbia. Here, There, Everywhere, DroogLab Amsterdam.

Mees, Heleen. 2014. China, No House of Cards. Capital, April 2014.

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2014. Are Chinese Individuals Prone to Money Illusion? (Accepted for publication by Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics).

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Why China's Growth Model Makes Sense. Project Syndicate, May 16, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Financial Crisis or Innovation Crisis? Both!. Project Syndicate, May, 2, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. The Big Wage Squeeze. Project Syndicate, April 23, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Transatlantic Strife. Project Syndicate, April 9, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Interest Rates Should Take Blame for Recession. Financial Times Economists's Forum, March 1, 2013.

Mees, Heleen. 2013. Go Fitch, Go. Financial Times Economists' Forum.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Synthesising Views on West's Poor Growth. Financial Times Economists' Forum, 12-12-2012.

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2012. Approximating the DGP of China's Quarterly GDP. Applied Economics Volume 45, Issue 24, 2013.

Mees, Heleen and Raman Ahmed. 2012. Why Do Chinese Households Save So Much? VoxEU, August 28, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. PhD-propositions in English and Mandarin Chinese. VoxEU, August 28, 2012.

Mees, Heleen and Raman Ahmed. 2012. Why Do Chinese Households Save So Much? Journal paper on China's household savings rate. This version August 2012. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen. 2012. The Fed Should Buy Stocks instead of Bonds. Financial Times Economists' Blog, August 6, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Changing Fortunes - How China's Boom Caused the Financial Crisis. Ph.D. thesis, August 28, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. China's Reliable Rise. Project Syndicate, July 25, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Evaluating the Global Crisis. Public Administration Review, Volume 72, Issue 6, Pages 779 - 949, November/December 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Fed Up. Foreign Policy on June 12, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. Only Germany Can Save Europe. Foreign Policy, April 24, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. The Zero Man Foreign Policy, April 3, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. How China's Boom Caused the Financial Crisis. Foreign Policy, January 17, 2012.

Mees, Heleen. 2012. U.S. Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble. Journal of Monetary Economics. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2011. Real Money in China, Money Illusion in America. In VoxEU on November 20, 2011.

Mees, Heleen and Philip Hans Franses. 2011. Are Chinese Individuals Prone to Money Illusion? Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No. 11-149/4. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen. 2011. The Perils of Loose Living. Foreign Policy, October 11, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. The Global Saving Glut Will Hold Bond Yields Down. In VoxEU on August 8, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. Lost in Transmission. In VoxEU on June 21, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. Beware of Runaway Headline Inflation. In VoxEU on May 3, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. U.S. Monetary Policy and the Saving Glut. In VoxEU on March 24, 2011.

Mees, Heleen. 2011. The False Panacea of Labor Market Flexibility. By Project Syndicate, March 22, 2011.

Franses, Philip Hans and Heleen Mees. 2011. Approximating the DGP of China's Quarterly GDP. By Econometric Institute Research Papers in 2011. (Under Review).

Franses, Philip Hans and Heleen Mees. 2011. Does News on Real Chinese GDP Growth Impact Stock Markets? By Econometric Institute Research Papers in 2011. (Under Review).

Mees, Heleen. 2010. Germany is not China. By Project Syndicate on August 16, 2010.

Mees, Heleen. 2010. Don't Blame the Euro. By EuroIntelligence on June 10, 2010.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Going Dutch? Not So Fast!. In The New York Times on May 24, 2009.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Going Dutch? Not So Fast! (extended version). In NRC Handelsblad on May 10, 2009.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Between Greed and Desire - The World between Wall Street and Main Street.

Mees, Heleen. 2009. Does Legalizing Prostitution Work By Project Syndicate on January 23, 2009.

Mees, Heleen. 2008. Wars against Women. By Project Syndicate on May 26, 2008.

Mees, Heleen. 2008. Why We Must Break the Male Cartel in the Work Place. In the Financial Times on April 23, 2008.

Mees, Heleen. 2007. The Cost of the Gender Gap. By Project Syndicate on August 29, 2007.

Mees, Heleen. 2007. China is Buying Europe. In The International Herald Tribune on July 29, 2007.

Mees, Heleen. 2006. Europe's Leisure Trap. By Project Syndicate on June 23, 2006.

Mees, Heleen and Rick van der Ploeg. 2005. Affirmative Action for Europe. In Le Monde on December 2, 2005.

Theobald Tiger's opinions and/or knowledge are not what matters. What can be verified by reliable sources is what matters. Theobald Tiger is just one editor working on that article out of multiple editors. You'd know that if you participated at Talk:Heleen Mees as you've been repeatedly asked to. I strongly suggest you do. -- Atama頭 18:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heleen_Mees&diff=605521525&oldid=605521425

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Thanks. --TheCockroach (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Bmwz3hm (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of Hengelo, Overijssel

Why do you continually delete Mees' birth place (Hengelo, Overijssel)? --TheCockroach (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Esthetics. It makes the page illegible for English readers. Bmwz3hm (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not true. Iam an English reader and it's perfectly legible. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Bmwz3hm (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Resumption of edit-warring

You've only just been released from a block for edit-warring and yet your first edits at Heleen Mees have been to be to edit-war by reverting the article to an almost identical version to that which resulted in your block.[3] You are well aware that edit-warring is unacceptable so please expect a further block, which will probably be longer if you revert again. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not edit warring. The talk page explains the edits. Bmwz3hm (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The edits have no consensus and you were blocked because of them. The current version is an almost identical version of those edits. You reverted without first discussing (discussing requires the participation of other editors) despite warnings NOT to do that. I have notified the adinistrator ho blocked you. In order to minimise the length of the almost certain block that you will be subjected to, I strongly encourage you to revert you most recent edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edits also have no consensus. Bmwz3hm (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

To give a fair and balanced account of Heleen Mees achievements, you have to look at sources/information before July 1, 2013. The charges against Mees are after all set for dismissal. Sensational reports in the Dutch tabloids after that date are not a good source. Bmwz3hm (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm, every time you revert someone it's an edit war. If you revert and you haven't reached an agreement on the talk page, you're edit-warring. See WP:EW for a full explanation of what's involved. Essentially, here is what you should be doing right now... Explain what you want to change on the talk page of the article. If someone objects, ask them why, and if you don't understand fully what their objection is, ask them to clarify any particular points you don't understand. Offer your counter-argument to support your point of view. You can try a compromise, meet them halfway, suggest a partial change of what you want but not all of it. But this should be a discussion as long as there is a disagreement. I'm very glad you're talking on the article talk page, that is a huge step forward for the article, but you can't just explain what you want and then do it. There has to be an agreement first. I don't think you understand this, which is why I'm not blocking you again for this edit-war, but I'm warning you that if you edit the article any further without any editor on the talk page agreeing with you, you will be blocked (and not by me, by someone else). At this point a lot of administrators would block because you're reoffending after your most recent block, but I'm giving you a chance so that you can learn this process. -- Atama頭 04:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Truly, I don't do the edit warring here. TT replaced the complete content of the article without there being any consensus. And AussieLegend keeps reverting to the TT text, without addressing any of the arguments that show that it is an imbalanced text. Bmwz3hm (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You've been blocked for edit-warring and Atama has explained edit-warring to you in very simple terms. It is clear to everyone except you that you are edit-warring. This includes the edits that you have made today. Because you have refused to acknowledged this I have notified the blocking admin and expanded the report at WP:AN3. As for your claim that "AussieLegend keeps reverting to the TT text, without addressing any of the arguments that show that it is an imbalanced text", that's not correct. I have explained that, as an uninvolved editor, I reviewed both your edits and those of Theobald Tiger and edited the article appropriately. While you may not support it, Theobald Tiger's edits seem far more balanced and less self-serving than yours, which are clearly opposed by multiple editors. You've made some bold edits, they were reverted and should now be discussed. You haven't explained why you first made these significant changes without discussion or explanation, only two edits later reverting the article to the version that got you blocked, which was a significant change from the edits you first made today.[4] We have been very patient with you but you seem intent only on forcing your version of the article. You need to discuss before editing, as others have suggested. Otherwise your blocks are going to get longer and longer. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Theobald Tiger made the most bold edit without prior approval. Give the sources you cite, I don't have the impression that are you very knowledgeable on the topic of Heleen Mees. You refuse to address any of the arguments that I brought forward on the talk page in support of the original text; the only thing you do is repeating edit-war, edit-war. Bmwz3hm (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bold edits are fine. Nobody needs prior approval to edit an article. Your first edits were bold edits that significantly changed the article and those edits were made without any explanation as to why you were making them.[5] There was absolutely no reason why Theobald Tiger could not edit the article as you did and he at least included explanations in his edit summaries but you haven't allowed that. You persistently revert any changes by other editors to something similar to your 16 April version. This is asserting ownership of an article which is prevented by policy. You need to understand that it doesn't matter whether or not you think you are right, edit-warring and asserting ownership of an article is not permitted under ANY circumstances. Quite apart from this, editors have expressed concern that you are Heleen Mees and I note you have not addressed these concerns. If you are Heleen Mees you should not be editing the article. These are the primary concerns at the moment. I haven't addressed your arguments on the talk page because you've only moved to the talk page today. I'm more concerned about the fact that you've persisted in edit-warring after releas from your block. Any message that you may have regarding content has been overshadowed by that. Your refusal to revert indicates to me that you are not really willing to collaborate, which is what you are expected to do. This is supported by the fact that soon after TheCockroach opposed your edits,[6] you reverted the article, not back to this revision but effectively back to your 16 April version. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Heleen Mees. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you have resumed the same behavior that just got you blocked, I have extended it to 48 hours. Again, you should review WP:BRD. Make a change once; if it is clear your edit is disputed, get consensus on the talk page before making the edit again. That doesn't mean keep making the edit just because you posted about it on the talk page. If you resume this behavior once unblocked, I shall have to consider an indefinite block until you indicate some basic understanding of consensus and edit warring. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Give that advise to Theobald Tiger and yourself. You are the ones who started the edit-warring. Bmwz3hm (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Spike Wilbury has never edited Heleen Mees. According to the article's edit history, either this edit or this one were the start of the edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm. Thank you. WCM_email

Edit warring

Hi. I know that this has been raised before, but the current pattern of reverting other people isn't sustainable. To try and solve these sorts of ongoing, otherwise unstoppable disputes, Wikipedia has a hard and fast rule that people who edit war are automatically blocked. At this stage, you will be blocked, the blocks will get progressively longer, and eventually the article will be locked down.

I don't want to see that happen - I don't know enough about the issue to make a call about which version of the article better, but I think you should have a right to have a say about the direction, and I certainly don't like situations with articles where there is a clear winner and loser. That's not how a collaborative environment should work. So would you agree to discuss specific issues with the article on the talk page? It means leaving the article in a state that you disagree with, but it is going to end up there when it gets locked. At least if we take this route there's more of an opportunity for it to be changed. Wikipedia has an effective process of dispute resolution, but it has to start with discussion. - Bilby (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, Thank you for your kind message. Unfortunately, I'm not willing to leave the article as promoted by Theobald Tiger as is. It includes all vicious and superfluous references to the charges that are set for dismissal. Also, it highlights details from Heleen Mees life in the Netherlands, while ignoring her achievements while a abroad, even though Mees left the Netherlands at age 28 and became known as a columnist at age 34. Bmwz3hm (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

When you discussed the Buiter issue you said that did not want that issue to overshadow Heleen Mees' other accomplishments. But that is just what is about to happen. The text pomoted by Theobald Tiger and AussieLegend makes all kinds of vicious and superfluous references to the - now dismissed - charges. Also, the text downplays all of the accomplishments of Mees outside the Netherlands, while highlighting details from her time in the Netherlands even though she left 16 years ago and only became known as an opinion writer at 34. Bmwz3hm (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to try and fix those issues. The problem is that if you continue to be blocked, you'll end up not having a say in the article - the blocks will get progressively longer until they become indefinite. I'd like to try and avoid things coming to that.

At least you have some breathing space - Administrators are instructed to protect articles in the state that they find them rather than picking a preferred version, so for the next two weeks it is fixed in the current version, unless something changes. But in two weeks time this is likely to start up again. If we go on the assumption that we need to start from the other version, are there any specific problems we can try to address before it is unprotected? I think the lead is too focused on the Netherlands, so I agree that should be changed, but I don't know enough yet to see what the other issues are. - Bilby (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Much appreciated. The lead in the disputed text is solely focused on the Netherlands, the text contains at least 12 demeaning references to the charges that are now being dismissed, the fact that Heleen Mees' articles have been published in The New York Times, The Financial Times, Le Monde, Foreign Policy has been deleted from the text because Theobald Tiger & Co. think it irrelevant. Therefore I don't think that the other article can serve as a healthy basis for the Heleen Mees article. On the Heleen Mees talk page you find a lot of back and forth on this. Bmwz3hm (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go through the talk page and see what I can pull out of that. I have a lot of lecturing commitments this week, but hopefully we have a bit of time to work through it, as the protection gives some breathing room. There is going to have to be compromise, because of how Wikipedia functions, but I'm hoping things end up being better, if nothing else. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, much appreciated. Bmwz3hm (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Bmwz3hm has now breached 3RR for a third time at Heleen Mees I've opened another report at WP:3RRNB. Spike Wilbury has clearly stated above, after he blocked Bmwz3hm for a second time that he would have to consider an indefinite block if she resumed edit warring without discussion, which is exactly what she has done. Her block was lifted two days ago and she has made no attempt to discuss her edits, instead simply edit-warring now that her sock and meatpuppets can no longer disrupt the article. I've asked that the article be unprotected after she is blocked, blocking being what should have happened instead of fully protecting the article, since it's clear that only Bmwz3hm and her socks have a problem with the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Blokkade van 3 dagen

Dag User:Bmwz3hm, ik zie dat je op de nl geblokt bent. Je mag niet overdrijven, anders komt er ook hier een blok van. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Lotje (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bmwz3hm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Indefinite block ). Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 13:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edits of other people's comments on the talk page

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Do not edit other people's comments on the Heleen Mees talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heleen_Mees&diff=prev&oldid=606190722 --TheCockroach (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually delete a large part of the discussion on the talk page, while I only included indents? Bmwz3hm (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything. --TheCockroach (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What "large part" are you talking about? Do you have a link? --TheCockroach (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A link to a deleted text on the Heleen Mees talk page? You must be kidding me. The text has been deleted, by you I presume. Bmwz3hm (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Why are you adding indents to other peoples' comments on the talk page? --TheCockroach (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Given my experience with Wikipedia, it is difficult to assume good faith. I find it quite malignant, just like many other internet platforms. The indents are solely meant to make the text more legible. Bmwz3hm (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't indent pages the way that you changed the talk page to indent. We step the replies until such time as it becomes necessary to outdent. As for "a link to a deleted text on the Heleen Mees talk page", no he's not kidding. Page histories show all edits so if text was deleted, you should be able to link to the revision in which the text was deleted. Here is a link to a revision in which you've deleted a post you made a few days ago. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Heleen Mees. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. AussieLegend (✉) 18:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your editing on Heleen Mees

Hello Bmwz3hm. As you've noticed, Heleen Mees is now protected from editing for two weeks. I did that because you and other editors were involved in a long-running edit war over the page's content. Since I locked the page, I've noticed that you seem to be rather confused about how to do things here, so I want to offer you some advice about how and how not to do things on the English Wikipedia. If your behavior hasn't changed by the time the article is unprotected, it is unlikely that you'll be allowed to continue editing Wikipedia at that point.

Do

• Discuss all issues on the talk page before you make edits.
• Provide reliable sources for the content you wish to add to the article
• Listen to what other people are saying. Saying "I won't discuss this" or "Well, that's how it is" doesn't resolve a dispute.
• Use our dispute resolution processes if you find that you are unable to reach agreement with other editors on the talk page. We have a number of venues that exist specifically to provide "tie-breaker" assistance in cases like this.
• Use the Volunteer Response Team if there are real-world or identity issues affecting the article (for instance, if you know an article subject and they want you to do X, you can contact the VRT privately with proof of those things)

Do not

• Remove content that is already in the article, unless you can prove that it is wrong or not sourced to a reliable sources (provide proof for this on the article's talk page)
• Revert a page more than once if you are in a dispute with someone. If you disagree with each other, undoing each other's edits isn't going to change that; the only way to reach agreement is to discuss the edits on the talk page. If you revert people repeatedly, the only thing that will happen is you will be blocked, as you already have been multiple times.
• Assume that because you know something is true, that means Wikipedia has to say it. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not memories or personal knowledge. At times, this means that Wikipedia might say things which you personally disagree with, because it is what the sources say.
• Call people things like "evil", or assume that because they're doing something you don't like they must be "vicious" or "lying". Everyone here is trying to do their best to write encyclopedia articles, and as long as you characterize your opponents as just "vicious" or "evil" rather than listening to what they're saying, it's very difficult to resolve anything.
• Assume that because the article currently says what you want it to say, you've "won." The article is not locked permanently; I have simply forced everyone to take a break from editing it. You must still discuss the issues with the other editors on the article's talk page if you wish the article to reach a stable state.

I cannot stress enough that you need to engage, calmly and in good faith, with other editors on Talk:Heleen Mees if you want your changes to be integrated into the article. Doing nothing won't work. Insisting that your version is the only right one won't work. Calling people names won't work. Reverting other people's edits won't work. The only thing that will work to help you get what you want is to engage with the other editors in the dispute resolution process. I've given you a quite generous second chance by not blocking you today, with the goal that you will be persuaded to engage in discussion now that the article is locked. It is your responsibility to do that now, or else the only other possible way forward is to block your account. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should address the other editors first. They replaced the fully-sourced original content of the Heleen Mees article with a subjective new text that belittles Heleen Mees' overseas achievements and makes as many vicious references as possible to the charges that are now set for dismissal. I don't know where you got the idea that internet anonymity brings out the best in people. In the Netherlands for sure it doesn't. Bmwz3hm (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Right now, I'm addressing you. Ignore, for a moment, what you think other people are doing, because no matter what they're doing, you're also doing something wrong. They could be doing a little dance on the head of a pin right now and it would not have anything to do with what I am telling you, which is that if you don't change your behavior, you are going to be restricted from editing Wikipedia, because your behavior is not following our policies. I have given you a chance that very few other people are willing to give you at this point: the chance to discuss the article's problems with the other editors. The fact that I think you are able to do that if you choose to is the only reason you're not blocked right now. If you are not able or willing to discuss the issues with other editors, calmly and rationally, in order to reach a compromise about the article's content - even if you think the other editors are terrible, even if you're positive that you're right and they're wrong - then the only other option available to administrators will be to block you from editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the chance you give me. On the talk page I have elaborately (and calmly) discussed why Theobald Tiger's text is not up to par. Still I only got accused of edit-warring, and no one was willing to engage with me even though I asked them to do so. I hope you read the Heleen Mees talk page. If you do, you can see that I'm not so unreasonable as some editors portray me to be. Bmwz3hm (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you're willing to discuss things on the talk page! The best way forward right now is probably to do this: go to the article's talk page and start a new section. In that secion, you should, very carefully and using as many sources as possible, write up what you find to be the errors in the version of the article you're arguing against. Don't talk about people's intentions, just talk about facts and how they relate to Wikipedia policy.

So for example, if you disagree with the article saying "The sky is blue", you would say "I think it's incorrect to say the sky is blue, because the New York Times in this link ([link]) writes that the sky is brown". What you would not say are things like, "Well, Heleen Mees told me last week that the sky is brown, so the article must say that" or "You're only saying that the sky is blue because you're evil and vicious", or "The sky is brown. That's the end of the discussion.". Write up a list of the facts you think are wrong or that you want to change. See what the other editors say. If their response is "But here's four other reliable sources that say 'The New York Times was wrong when it said the sky is blue'", read those sources and consider whether you might be wrong.

If their response is "The sky is blue, that's the end of it, I don't care what you say", then remember that you have other options besides reverting them! If you can't reach a consensus locally, you can use Dispute Resolution! The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard exists exactly for cases like this, and in fact if you feel that you cannot engage with the other editors yourself on the article's talk page, you can go right there today and open a thread, instead. That noticeboard is staffed by editors whose job is to help everyone speak calmly and rationally to each other about disputes until they reach a conclusion. If the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard doesn't help, you can even open the dispute up for outside input by opening a Request for Comment, where other people will come along and discuss their opinions of the situation, so you can see which side of the dispute is best supported. In both of those solutions, you have a third-party "referee" type involved, to either guide the discussion or to decide which argument is best supported.

The key here is that you cannot be both arguer and decider of the article's content at this point - you will need to work with others to discuss the issues and have someone guide you and the other editors toward a consensus. If consensus is against you, then you will need to accept that, even if you hate it. Wikipedia runs on consensus, and trying to force in your preferred version of an article in spite of a consensus, or refusing to participate in forming a consensus, is one of the quickest ways to lose your right to edit Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that is the problem with Wikipedia. Things are not only true when The New York Times writes it. That would - after all - be an entirely new form of existentialism with far-reaching consequences. I exist because The New York Times writes that I exist. The world would be a much less crowded place, I guess. Bmwz3hm (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed some of the prior discussion. I don't know whether or not the claim was accurate, but due to concerns about Bmwz3hm's privacy I've had to remove them. I couldn't see a method of redacting the comments that didn't also cause issues with the responses that followed. - Bilby (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm, the difficulty Wikipedia faces is that the "anyone can edit" by anonymous users would be unworkable without some form of editorial control. Because Wikipedia can't provide that editorial control, the policies that have been built move the editorial process to the sources that are used to develop Wikipedia articles.

As an example, if I wanted to add a claim to an article, such as "Person X won the 1979 Glenelg marathon by riding on a tram instead of running", it might be that I'm saying it because I have expert knowledge. I might also be making it up. But due to the problem of identities online, other people wouldn't be able to evaluate which it is. So instead I am required to reference something that provides editorial control, such as the local paper, so that it can be independently confirmed as coming from a trusted source. And the more controversial the claim, the stronger the sources are expected to be. This is especially the case where claims about living people are concerned.

The nasty side effect of this is that even simple claims may need to be sourced, even when we can generally agree that they are likely to be true. Wikipedia is trying to walk a fairly narrow line, and a lot of the policies which were created to solve a big problem have the side effect of creating additional secondary problems. That doesn't mean that there isn't a way forward, just that it isn't always an easy one. - Bilby (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Bilby, I understand that claims must be verifiable. But some editors suggest that the fact that Heleen Mees' work has been published in The New York Times, the Financial Times, Foreign Policy, Le Monde et cetera can only be included in the Wikipedia article if a separate newspaper article states that her work has been published in those newspapers. I would suggest that simply linking to the articles should be sufficient proof. By the way, the article as it is now, is terribly outdated. Bmwz3hm (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree - sometimes people argue that we need to show that content is notable within an article, but that isn't the case. If we want to say "published in NYT" a link to an article published in the NYT should be sufficient. The arguments for not including that shouldn't be based on verifiability or notability, although you will get people arguing for or against on different lines. The current version of the article is certainly no good - while I would have preferred to let it stay as it was, I guess starting from scratch might be a decent move. - Bilby (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the version that you froze would be a good start. It is objective and just describes the events in Heleen Mees's life as is. It doesn't contain value judgments about what's noteworthy and what's not. Let the reader decide. And it doesn't include undue references to the Buiter business. All charges are set for dismissal, which does say at least something about the original allegations.Bmwz3hm (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The previous version was removed because it appeared to use text taken from heleenmees.com. As such it was seen as a potential copyright violation. It could be argued that it wasn't a violation, but my feeling is that it would be easier to rewrite the material so that there was no question of a problem than it would be to have it reinserted as it was. My feeling is that the version it was reverted back to was better than the one you had opposed, in the sense that it is out of date but didn't have the more serious problems you identified, so under what are less-than-ideal circumstances it seems like the best course is to work from there. At most it will only have to remain for two weeks. - Bilby (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no copyrights attached to bio's. After all, they are meant to be used by interested parties for further publication. It's just an excuse to have the text removed. Anyway, the outdated text is less harmful than the text with the undue (and vicious) references to the Buiter business. Bmwz3hm (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's approach to copyright is very restrictive, and is more limiting than what would normally be permitted as fair use. It can be frustrating, but at least with text we always have the option of rewriting. - Bilby (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Shall I draft a text tomorow and send it to you (perhaps through email) so you can have a look at it as well? Bmwz3hm (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I find the argument that Wikipedia copyright is very restrictive unconvincing. I have the impression that Wikipedia/Wikicommons is ruled by mobs who ignore any and all rules. For example, Wikicommons keeps deleting a photo of Heleen Mees, even though the photo agency EPA has released it under the required license (cc-by-sa-3.0) and with a statement as demanded by a Wikicommons editor (anyone can reuse the file, including pages like Wikipedia). Bmwz3hm (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Another example of mob rule. If other Wiki-editors support my version of the Heleen Mees article, they get accused of sock puppetry and are blocked from Wikipedia. But editors who choose the other side (Theobald Tiger, AussieLegend) and revert the original text to Theobald Tiger's edit without any argument or explanation, are just fine. Bmwz3hm (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The person not following the rules is you. Mob rule doesn't even come into it. You've been blocked twice for breaching the three-revert rule and you're looking at another block. Your problem is that the editors who support you are accounts that were clearly created just to support you and the evidence supporting the claims against you is overwhelming. We've even had an admin from the Dutch Wikipedia who has confirmed that two of the accounts were confirmed as sockpuppets of yours at the Dutch Wikipedia and a certain Twitter account has thanked someone for making edits in support of you here. As has been explained previously, the image that you uploaded to commons was deleted for quite valid reasons - the licensing information that was provided was incompatible with Commons. That you are still defending your actions instead of accepting that they were wrong, even in the face of considerable evidence, is disturbing. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Your viciousness is beyond limits. And you're clearly not up to date regarding the photo. The photo has been released under the required license (cc-by-sa-3.0) and is accompanied by the requested statement from EPA. That the photo has still not been undeleted, is an example of mob rule, as simple as that. Fact is also that other people agree that Theobald Tiger's text (that you co-edited) is a character assassination of Heleen Mees. That doesn't make them sock puppets, just people who disagree with you. Bmwz3hm (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The image was not released freely. It was released for use on Wikipedia on the condition that any use outside Wikipedia required you to pay a license fee. That is incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. The people who have agreed with you have been sock and/or meatpuppets regardless of their opinions. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, you're clearly not up to date regarding the photo. Check the Wikicommons mailbox. There you find the EPA email confirming that the photo has been released under license cc-by-sa-3.0 and that EPA has given a statement saying that anyone can reuse the file, including pages like Wikipedia. You may also check with JurgenNL. Bmwz3hm (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm, as I said earlier, I gave you a chance when no one else wanted to, because I thought maybe you could discuss the issues if you got some help about how to do it. Apparently you are not interested in actual discussion, though, based on your behavior in the days since. So this is the last warning I'm going to give you: either from this moment on, you begin calmly discussing the actual content you want changed in Heleen Mees on its talk page, instead of calling people names and claiming that it's just "character assassination", or I will block you indefinitely from editing. You've run out of last chances. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made elaborate arguments on the talk page that never ever anybody cared to respond to. I have argued that (1) Heleen Mees is not known outside the Netherlands for her feminist views and that the article therefore can not lead with that; (2) the numerous publications by Heleen Mees in international media do deserve mention; (3) the article should not include undue references to the dismissed charges, beyond the mentioning that she was charged and the charges are now set for dismissal.

If you think that 12 references to the dismissed charges do not amount to character assassination, you have other standards than I have. Bmwz3hm (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Set for dismissal" and "dismissed" are 2 different things. Ethically, this is obvious to anyone. the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The outcome is exactly the same. The fact that the charges are set for dismissal suggests at least that the charges do not warrant 12 references in a single article, unless you're out to damage the person who is the topic of the article. Bmwz3hm (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the outcome is not the same. The charges are set for dismissal on the conditions that Mees attends therapy and stays out of trouble for 12 months. Essentially she is on a good behaviour bond or probation. This would seem to indicate there was some merit in the charges. Had there been no merit the charges would have been dismissed without conditions. In the section that deals with the charges there are only two references that relate to them. While other references may mention the charges, they are not used in the section but to support other content in the article. We often have to deal with sources that reference multiple aspects regarding an individual. In this case it's unfortunate but the charges are an aspect of Mees' life and you can't just pretend they never happened but in the article the sources are not use to draw attention to them so it's not character assassination at all. We don't censor Wikipedia and we have to be neutral in our approach. We're not going to sanitise an article just to avoid embarrassment that one editor feels over something that happened. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Or going to trial is very, very expensive and time-consuming, especially for somebody who lost her job and all her sources of income.

And the outcome is exactly the same, but hey, you're AussieLegend so I don't expect you to know U.S. law.

Attempts at proxy editing

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fluffernutter, Drmies, Bilby, Hello, the Heleen Mees article is now full of nonsense. Mees never was an employee of the European Commission, the 2006 article about women (not) working was not her first article in NRC Handelsblad. She had published quite a bit before that. Also, the article includes vicious and superfluous references to the stalking charges that are set for dismissal and is all in all quite unbalanced. The following would be a much better text: Heleen Mees (born Heleen Nijkamp, 1968, Hengelo)[1] is a Dutch opinion writer, economist and lawyer. She has been credited as being a third wave feminist.[3] Contents [hide] 1 Biography 2 Publications 3 References 4 External links Biography Mees graduated in Economy and Law at University of Groningen. From 1992 to 1998, Mees worked for the Dutch Treasury in The Hague. From 1998 to 2000 Mees worked as a national expert for the European Commission in Brussels.[5] In 2000 she emigrated to the USA, where she changed her surname to Mees.[6] Mees lives in Brooklyn, New York.[2] Mees' breakthrough as an opinion writer in the Netherlands came in 2006 when she wrote The time is long overdue that women should go to work.[8] That same year, she co-founded Women on Top, an organization that until 2011 advocated more women in top jobs.[9] From 2006 to 2010 Mees wrote a bi-weekly column in NRC Handelsblad, and from 2012 to 2013 for Het Financieele Dagblad. Her work has been published in the Financial Times, Foreign Policy and other international newspapers. Currently she is a columnist for Project Syndicate[11] and the German magazine Capital. Mees is the author of three books. Mees has been president of the New York chapter of the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) in New York. In 2008, she worked as a volunteer for the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.[12] In August 2012, Mees completed a doctoral thesis at the Erasmus School of Economics, focusing on the effect of China's economy on the emergence of the 2008 global financial crisis.[13] While completing her research, she worked as an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Tilburg University.[14] From September 2012 until July 2013, Mees was employed as an Adjunct Associate Professor of Public Administration at New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.[15] In July 2013, Mees was arrested in New York on charges of stalking her former lover, the chief economist of Citigroup, Willem Buiter.[16] In March 2014, the court decided that the case against Mees was to be dismissed in one year provided that she complies with two conditions.[17] Bmwz3hm (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Response / Heleen Mees Bmwz3hm: You say that Mees was never an employee of the European Commission but then you say that she did work for the European Commission ("From 1998 to 2000 Mees worked as a national expert for the European Commission in Brussels."). You say "the 2006 article about women (not) working was not her first article in NRC Handelsblad. She had published quite a bit before that." That's irrelevant because the Heleen Mees Wikipedia article does not claim that The time is long overdue that women should go to work was her first article in NRC Handelsblad, just that it was her breakthrough (in the Netherlands) as an opinion writer. Mees has blogged for the Financial Times' Economists' Forum blog, not written in the Financial Times magazine (except for one article, as far as I can see through Google). Example: http://blogs.ft.com/economistsforum/2012/08/the-fed-should-buy-stocks-instead-of-bonds/ If you recall, you originally claimed (on the Heleen Mees talk page and in the Heleen Mees article itself) that Mees had written ("her work has been published in...") for The New York Times and Le Monde. This has been talked about extensively on the Heleen Mees talk page and no one agreed with you that The New York Times or Le Monde claims should be added. I have just posted a question on the Heleen Mees talk page to see if other users think that Mees' Foreign Policy writing should be added to the Heleen Mees article. --TheCockroach (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Reply Fluffernutter, Drmies, Bilby, The article literally claims: "(...) her first article in the Dutch daily newspaper NRC Handelsblad," which is simply untrue. She had already published more articles in NRC Handelsblad as well as in other Dutch newspapers. Working as national expert is different than being an employee of the European Commission. Mees has published five articles or so in The Financial Times Deutschland, one in the English Financial Times, and five or so in Foreign Policy, plus the ones in Le Monde, New York Times et cetera. Even the Dutch article for Heleen Mees finds her publications in foreign papers worthwhile to mention. The article is quite unbalanced if you leave that out, while at the same time you trip over all descriptions of Mees views on women's issues. Bmwz3hm (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC) About the "her first article...", you are right. I didn't see that. It has now been deleted. --TheCockroach (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Do you have a source that calls Mees a "national expert" for the European Commission? --TheCockroach (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Fluffernutter, Drmies, Bilby, Source: http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/1999/juni/16/ik-kan-niet-als-enige-gelijk-hebben-7451175 Please note that my other criticism of the article is still valid, i.e. that it is unbalanced because it fails to mention Mees columns and international publications, while it trips over the descriptions of Mees' views on women's issues. Again, see the suggested edit. As Bilby and Theobald Tiger suggest on the Heleen Mees talk page, it may be better to leave Mees' political activities out. Heleen Mees (born Heleen Nijkamp, 1968, Hengelo)[1] is a Dutch opinion writer, economist and lawyer. She has been credited as being a third wave feminist.[3] Contents [hide] 1 Biography 2 Publications 3 References 4 External links Biography Mees graduated in Economy and Law at University of Groningen. From 1992 to 1998, Mees worked for the Dutch Treasury in The Hague. From 1998 to 2000 Mees worked as a national expert for the European Commission in Brussels.[5] In 2000 she emigrated to the USA, where she changed her surname to Mees.[6] Mees lives in Brooklyn, New York.[2] Mees' breakthrough as an opinion writer in the Netherlands came in 2006 when she wrote The time is long overdue that women should go to work.[8] That same year, she co-founded Women on Top, an organization that until 2011 advocated more women in top jobs.[9] From 2006 to 2010 Mees wrote a bi-weekly column in NRC Handelsblad, and from 2012 to 2013 for Het Financieele Dagblad. Her work has been published in the Financial Times, Foreign Policy and other international newspapers. Currently she is a columnist for Project Syndicate[11] and the German magazine Capital. Mees is the author of three books. In August 2012, Mees completed a doctoral thesis at the Erasmus School of Economics, focusing on the effect of China's economy on the emergence of the 2008 global financial crisis.[13] While completing her research, she worked as an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Tilburg University.[14] From September 2012 until July 2013, Mees was employed as an Adjunct Associate Professor of Public Administration at New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.[15] In July 2013, Mees was arrested in New York on charges of stalking her former lover, the chief economist of Citigroup, Willem Buiter.[16] In March 2014, the court decided that the case against Mees was to be dismissed in one year provided that she complies with two conditions.[17] Bmwz3hm (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC) So, Her Majesty has returned, condescending towards others, and trumpeting about her glamour and her glory? Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)