User talk:DParlevliet

Scout method

Thanks for doing the merge. If you're done, you need to make the Educational article redirect to Scout method.Rlevse 15:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

You can create user subpages to create draft edits of articles or sections. This is especially good when you are making major rewrites, especially to a Featured Article. A sandbox is just someplace to play. You can ask other editors to critique your sandbox drafts. You can create a subpage by going to you user page and adding something like /sandbox1 to the URL. Just to help you along, simply click on User:DParlevliet/sandbox1 and you can create your first sandbox. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Scoutmilitary.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Scoutmilitary.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Scouting

Thank you for your interest in Scouting articles. Please consider joining us at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Members. I do have one bit of advice, when editing articles, especially Featured Articles (FA) like Scouting, you have to be very careful of format, references, and spelling. For instance, references come after punctutation, not before, and with no intervening space. I fixed several of these for you. Things like this will get a FA de-featured. Thanks. Rlevse 14:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advise and I will check it careful. Still I think if WIKI really follows his principles it will regard content more important then form, otherwise it will not be possible for editing by new and/or not native Englisch speaking writers. As a writer of badly written articles and three reverts (according WIKI rules only intended as a tool against vandalism) a project Scouting memberschip is not appropriate. DParlevliet 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to B-P reverted

Text in Dutch, to better explain the fine points to a non-native English speaker

Hallo Dirk, ik ben zo vrij geweest je toevoegingen aan het article Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. Hoewel duidelijk te zien is dat je wijzigingen goede bedoelingen zijn, en zeker niet allemaal verkeerde informatie bevatten, zijn er ook veel wijzigingen die het article gewoon verslechteren. Natuurlijk zijn er altijd mensen die jouw Engels zullen verbeteren, maar probeer dan om vooral aanvullende informatie toe te voegen, in plaats van het hele article om te gooien. En als tip: maak er wat meer kleine edits van, en bij elke edit kun je dan aangeven waarom je die tekst verandert. Je ziet namelijk ook aan het Scouting article dat het tamelijk hopsakee inmieteren van jouw sandbox text (waarvan ik duidelijk heb gezegd dat die nog veel textuele verbeteringen aan referenties en grammatica benodigde) in een article dat reeds topkwaliteit (Feature Article) is, niet echt op prijs gesteld wordt. Om te voorkomen dat je nog meer kwade mensen krijgt, heb ik dus jouw ene grote toevoeging aan B-P teruggedraaid. Het article is nog niet FA, maar wel op op weg naar een hoge kwaliteit, dus er zijn nogal wat mensen mee bezig nu. Mag ik je voorstellen om de goede informatie die je hebt met kleine bescheiden hoeveelheden en duidelijke editsummaries toe te voegen? Niet alles in een keer, en geef mensen een paar dagen gelegenheid om telkens de tekst weer te finetunen. Dan zullen veel meer mensen begrijpen wat je bedoelt en welwillend zijn om een nieuweling te helpen. Veel success ermee. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ik had dit alleen gedaan op verzoek van Gadget850 om de inhoud overeen te laten komen met de veranderingen die ik in Scouting had aangebracht. Als dit niet de bedoeling was, dan niet, maakt mij ook niet uit. Ik merk er trouwens niets van dat het niet op prijs wordt gesteld en al helemaal niet van kwade mensen. Het zijn allemaal inhoudelijke opmerkingen of suggesties waar ik weer op geantwoord hebt. DParlevliet 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoi Dirk, enigzins achter de schermen is er nogal wat commotie over je wijzigingen geweest: dat was echt zo. Maar het zijn vriendelijke mensen bij het Scouting WikiProject. Het probleem was vooral het moment: op DIT moment staat het Scouting article op de voorpagina, en daar hoort alleen een toonbeeld van kwaliteit te staan. Zinnen die krom zijn maken op zo'n moment een heel slechte indruk voor het team van mensen die het article in de laatste maanden zin voor zin, woord voor woord naar de huidige versie van topkwaliteit hebben gebracht. Dat neemt inderdaad niet weg dat er zaken inhoudelijk nog beter kunnen, maar dat blijven discussie-onderwerpen: welke invloed iets precies op Scouting had blijkt interpreteren. En een kromme zin is op dit moment niet discutabel: dat is gewoon een flater. Vandaar het sterke reverten van veel van je toevoeging. Lees mijn tips nog maar eens: kleine verbeteringen, elk met een goede edit summary en niet alles in een keer. Nogmaals succes. En je bent echt welkom bij het Wikiproject Scouting, want je hebt Tim Jeal gelezen! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- PS. Op het plaatje dat je geupload hebt zitten nog auteursrechten (copyright). Dat heb je er niet bij gezet (zoals in een section hierboven ook staat), en daarom zit er nu een voorstel voor deletion op. Maar als je de copyright notice wel op zet wordt het plaatje ook gedelete, want dat mag niet hier op Wikipedia: alleen plaatjes vrij van auteursrechten, met heel weinig uitzonderingen. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Heb het plaatje daarom niet gebruikt, want alles van BP is nog niet rechtenvrij. Dus het mag delete worden en is trouwens niet meer nodig nu de tekst weg is. DParlevliet 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Article, you will be blocked from editing. -- 71.193.243.8 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |}[reply]

February 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, however one of your recent edits, the one you made to Baden-Powell (book), did not appear to be constructive as it removed a valid third-party reference and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DiverScout (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above message is a follow-up to this edit by DiverScout with edit summary "Reverting vandalism". I have no comment on the merits of the change in question, but it is totally unacceptable to call it "vandalism" and I can only assume that posting the above erroneous warning was done on automatic. There may be some background to this that I am not aware of, but it is never acceptable to issue vandalism warnings concerning a content change. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity needed on merger

DParlevliet, I see you tagged Delayed choice quantum eraser with a merger proposal. The notice says Quantum eraser but that is a redirect to Quantum eraser experiment. Is the latter your intended target? Also, which article do you wish to merge into which? Have a look at Wikipedia:Merging for the proper procedure for proposing a merger: there should be a tag on both pages, linking to a discussion section on the talk page of the target. Otherwise, no one knows where to post their views on the merger. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Hong-Ou-Mandel2.GIF

Thanks for uploading File:Hong-Ou-Mandel2.GIF. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Hong-Ou-Mandel1.GIF

Thanks for uploading File:Hong-Ou-Mandel1.GIF. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war

Warning: You have made three reverts to Delayed choice quantum eraser in the last 24 hours against consensus, two reverts of my edits, one of Patrick0Moran's edits. Your entire history of contributions to this article since 07:41, 1 October 2013‎ has been of addition of material expressing your POV against the consensus of (1) Patrick0Moran, (2) an anonymous IP who has actual experience in the field (who argued extensively with you on the talk page but refrained from actually editing the article himself), and (3) myself. Please do not revert again, and please do not think that you can hide behind the 24 hour rule by waiting a few extra hours before making your next revert. The 24 hour rule is merely a bright line rule. See WP:EDITWAR. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if you maliciously report me on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring noticeboard, your own behavior in this content dispute will be scrutinized. I have no fear of reporting you. YOU, on the other hand... Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double-slit experiment

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Double-slit experiment, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. With this edit you removed properly sourced correct content and replaced it with entirely unsourced incomplete content. - DVdm (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Double-slit experiment. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Don't refer to wikiarticles. See wp:CIRCULAR. When you refer to a book, give page and number. You should provide the sources, not we, see wp:BURDEN - DVdm (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - By the way, please also have a look at wp:3RR and wp:BRD. If you feel so strong about that edit, then you should go the article talk page and make a case. Make sure you can point to the exact page of the source where your addition is supported. - DVdm (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Double-slit experiment. For this edit, made while logged ouit. - DVdm (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Double-slit experiment 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. - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bearian (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Double-slit experiment

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Double-slit experiment. 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.

The full report of this case was at the edit warring noticeboard (permalink). Any admin might lift this block if you would promise not to edit physics articles for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DParlevliet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

an administrator did block me because "Over the period since April 1 it appears that DParlevliet (and his IP) have reverted this article about 14 times". I cannot find a wiki-rule which allows blocking for this reason (how much reverts in which time are not allowed?). De administrator did not check if my reverts where right or wrong and I have not been officially reported because of these reverts.DParlevliet (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I cannot find a wiki-rule which allows blocking for this reason -- see WP:EDITWAR. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DParlevliet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please cite the rule in WP:EDITWAR which allows blocking for the above mentioned reason. Anyway, I counted 8 "undid" in this time, while in the same time DVdm had 6 undids. My reverts end of April concerned an edit war of DVdm where he admitted he was wrong. All my reverts where actions on other reverts, I have not "undid" edits of others, I never started an edit war. DParlevliet (talk) 7:59 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

From the very first paragraph: "Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned." Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DParlevliet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

DVdm, Patrick0Moran and Chetvorno (who started the war) were also engaged in the edit war and are not blocked. So please cite the rule in WP:EDITWAR which allows to block me DParlevliet (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. You're running out of arguments for unblock, and unless you can really come up with a good one for you next one (if you make another one, that is), I'd recommend that in addition to declining it your talk page access be revoked for the duration of the block. — Daniel Case (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If even administrators don't know, nor bother, with what wiki-rule they block people, then discussion is useless. Wiki without laws. DParlevliet (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DParlevliet. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DParlevliet. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DParlevliet. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DParlevliet. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]