User talk:Gidonb/Archive 2017

Robin Schmidt

The article Robin Schmidt has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. PK T(alk) 18:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result was keep. Absolutely no case for deletion! gidonb (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Peeters

Hello Gidonb and thank you very much for your various corrections April 9th = 4 items.

Revision as of 22:25, 9 April 2017 There are a few items which, in my view need further review and which I propose as follows:

(1) Solo exhibitions should read: Solo exhibitions (selected). Reason: this is a selection of exhibitions, the photographer had several more exhibitions, the list is not complete. I notice the mention (selected) is common practice with other pages of photographers: example 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Gruyaert solo exhibitions (selected) Collections (selected) example 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Killip (selected joint exhibitions) example 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Bohm (selected group exhibitions)

(2) This also goes for 'Publications' (selected)- as per (1)

(3) Line 44 Catalogs added seems not an accurate description. These are not exhibition or museum catalogs but refer to (a selection) of publications of a portfolio ie several pages of the work of the photographer, published in photo magazines, in various countries.

Therefore would suggest under heading Publications (selected)

-Portfolios in photo magazines. 
-Books - as is -

Again, thanks for your revisions and kind assistance --FredMertens (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FredMertens, thank you for your warm feedback. I edit tons of articles, very quickly, slashed this article by a lot and rewrote/condensed most section titles, so I definitely can make mistakes or overlook something. Overall you were a true sport about my drastic changes. I appreciate this. As for your comments, selected (item 1 and 2) is not an improvement. Lists are generally incomplete and by writing selected above a list we may create the impression that this isn't usually the case. Further: where exhibitions and selected exhibitions essentially mean the same thing (because of lists generally being incomplete), exhibitions without selected has a clear preference as it is far more focused. You claim that other stuff exists but the error may be at the other stuff. It probably is. Still not a wasted effort; I'll improve the other articles if my suspicion is correct. I expect to find something to improve in your item 3. Will look at this soon! Thanks again, gidonb (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gidonb for the clarification on 'selected'. Point understood and well taken! Thank you also in regard to item 3. Kind regards --FredMertens (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could tell these are basically articles. Please stick to their original names as titles. gidonb (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After titles were not improved, I have removed the entire section. The article is better without it! gidonb (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baron de Wael

the last de waal, jan, died 20 years ago, so nobody "wants to be baron " as you quoted the more the title and the historic acts, docs are in wien registered in their files as quoted address of the institution Have a closer look at the books and docs quoted. If you only "google"to check, that looks to me not so professional the topic is the following: because of the anniversary of the reign of Karl VI of 300 years; thousands of unstudied documents of his time are currently studied to get more insight in the politics of those days. especially "The Wael Baron " is a topic: explain: the southern Netherlands were occupied by the austrians ( lower austrian countries) as we know until 1790 and then the >Northern part of the Netherlands were put with the southern part ( now belgium) and luxembourg together,and in 1814 the Kingdom of the Netherlands was founded under Kong William I of the Netherlands.

The question here is; why did Karl VI give sijmon the austrian title of baron ? Was he (sijmon) spying for the austrians ?. What we know from history that there was a tension between the netherlands (north netherland and the lower österreichische Lande (southern part ) Was Karl intensions to extend his territory towards the northern part of the Netherlands, and thatswhy he wanted to influence important people in those times ( like sijmon?) So this is the topic why this article could be of importance. we will know much more about this when the scientists finish studying KARL VI.

PS I do not like the sentence "bit fraught" as everything can be proven by the official authorities in Wien as put in reference. I made the effort to get more insight in older dutch history influenced by the austrians which occupied the sauthernpart of holland, I hope you appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claas de Wael, we do not allow Original Research in Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oke got it, well ask official statements with reference code

Work has become a bit fraught, so I will not be able to review in depth as I intended. I have struck my "keep" in accordance with your assessment of the sources. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dlohcierekim. All this is without prejudice. The person could be notable. We just do not know that until sufficiently referenced. gidonb (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gidonb,

1.- I can also put the crest of "de Wael" with picture. I just have to see how I can do it technically.

2.-Also a picture with Baron Evert (1900-1956) with HM Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. They were very good friends. Evert through the family of his grandmother, were direct descendants of the Counts of Holland. HM Wilhelmina was direct ancestor (11 generations) 7th cousin's direct descendant (5 generations) from baron Evert.

if you think this could make the articles more interesting, pls advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talk • contribs) 09:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claas de Wael, as long as the article is there, you can add almost anything over which you own copyright. However, I also need to refer you to WP:NOTINHERETED. Enjoy the editing! gidonb (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is my opinion that all nobility are inherently noble. Don't know how much water that holds today. Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) never achieved consensus.]] The sources we have would probably be sufficient to establish da Wael as a noble house. And that was the basis for my keep. Perhaps we can userfy and he can run it through Articles for Creation. Of course, once deleted, all efforts to source the thing on the part of the project as a whole will cease. Sometimes it takes more than a week to find sources on 18th century subjects.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if this Sijmon de Wael was a baron and if someone inherited that. It's a claim hat creator made and that I could find only in some amateur family trees. My comment above refers to any knowledge of the members of the house of orange, if real. I also met 2 reigning kings and 1 such queen. 2 out of 3 were Dutch. It doesn't make me 1 bit notable! Baron is lesser in the failed policy you referred to. gidonb (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All,

First of all want to express my gratitude for looking at this subject, your time and effort to understand it.

1.- I saw you did not approve the article and already destroyed it, and read the comments why.

a.- the books quoted were issued in 2004 and 2012 which mentioned the topic. (not dusty old books, as mentioned) b.- the more the austrian officials confirmed the fact, and will publish a new publication about Karl VI and mentioning sijmon and his patent letter confirming his austrian (not Dutch!) title. c.- if this subject was publicised many times in google already, no effort would be made to contact you. d.- I do understand the load of articles you have to look at and the time you have to invest to check everything out, but... if the person in question, who has to decide, is not 100% fluent in dutch and german language, then it is difficult to check this topic and read the send in articles.

Well anyway thank you again , and we will not address you anymore regarding this subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talk • contribs) 10:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claas de wael, I contest the notion that my opinions are more valid because of the languages I speak. There were several contributors to the discussion. All raised valid points and concerns. WP is more successful when more diverse. Also please stop vandalizing my talk page. It is OK for you to empty your talk page. It's not OK for you to censor my talk page. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the message. I do understand your point. When the study of Wien, Austria will be publicised, I will come back to you in due course. Thanks again for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talk • contribs) 12:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Memorial (Netherlands)

The memorial, a few days after it was unveiled

Hi Gidonb,

I noticed that you have renamed the page Lancaster Monument (Beuningen, the Netherlands) into Lancaster Memorial (Netherlands). I also saw that you renamed the article on the Memorial in Weiswampach in Luxemburg. I disagree with your action. There are dozens of Lancaster momuments in the Netherlands, and this causes ambiguity. I think that the title of the artilce must refer to the specific monument in Beuningen. Your motivation was probably that there is currently only one article about a Dutch Lancster Memorial in the English WP, but this is of secondary importance compared to mentioning the location. The article is simply not about "THE" Lancastermonument in the Netherlands. It suggests there is only one.

Would you please be so kind to revert both actions? Thanks, Take Mirrenberg (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Take Mirrenberg, I will respond to your inquiry soon. gidonb (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Take Mirrenberg, it is nowhere implied that this is the only such monument in each country. The dab needs to be as large scale and concise as possible to make it well understood to which EXISTING INTERNAL article the name refers. Has nothing to do with all that is out there in the real world! This means that if there are, let's say, 100 similar monuments in the Netherlands AND in Luxembourg and only one of each has an article, then the articles are exactly at the correct names. Hence the move! Now if you create out of these two hundred only one single third article for, let's say, a monument in Raalte, Netherlands, the correct names would be:

Lancaster Memorial (Overijssel)
Lancaster Memorial (Gelderland)
Lancaster Memorial (Luxembourg)

etc. You should not get to towns in the dab (and even less so double locations) until there is an absolute need! gidonb (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gidonb, thanks for clarifying! Ok, I get the picture. I think we have a difference in naming approach between the NL wiki and EN wiki here. At the NL wiki we like refinements between parenthesis. EN wiki does it the minimalist way. Ok, if this is the convention.

Still I think that the suffixes (Gelderland) or (Overijssel) are really a bad idea. To dutch ears it sounds like a joke. It's concise, but mentioning the province is obsolete and therefore unclear. Provinces are not comparable with states in the US, which are indeed used for clarifying locations. Provinces are in no way related to the monument, so I don't see the advantage above identifying it directly by municipality. I would also think it is conflicting with WP:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names. It's known as the Lancaster Memorial in Beuningen, and not the Lancaster Memorial in Gelderland.

I thought of the following example: imagine you would have a Museum of Modern Art in Amsterdam and a second one in Rotterdam. Then the naming convention would lead to Museum of Modern Art (Noord-Holland) and Museum of Modern Art (Zuid-Holland). That wouldn't be clear, I think. Take Mirrenberg (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Take Mirrenberg, it's a bit preaching the choir as I consistently promote this very same spatial sanity throughout en.wiki. I would skip the provinces in favor of more recognized units without thinking twice and often remove such detail from articles. We do use provinces here by the convention that I explained above. The examples of monuments that I saw were in smaller towns so my writeup followed suit. I hope you will join me to spread the word as you share the same insights. gidonb (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch soccer

There is a discussion taking place, that you might be interested in here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn, please immediately stop the mass moving, redirection and deletion of articles on notable subjects. WP has procedures for discussions and decisions should not be about who is the most insistent on pressing buttons. If you really believe an article is not notable, please AfD it with good reasons, so the community can have its say. So far that "did not work out so well" although damage was limited by your discussion buddy by self-closing the AfD with the wrong summary. Previous closure of a similar discussion by a honest broker ended in a clear speedy keep but his totally unacceptable self-closure disallowed this clear signal once again. After the clear community verdicts on your actions, also at the request for undeletion page, you have the bluntness to continue the attack on a Wikipedia subject as if you guys did nothing wrong. If you do not have good reasons for deleting an article, just add a {{cn}} template at the end of a particular phrase that you find questionable and you feel needs referencing. This is how I do it. Editing at Wikipedia should not be about stressing each other. gidonb (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the discussion itself, judging from various community decisions and its contents it is way too detached from reality for me to participate or react in. Reacting to such a heap of nonsense may dignify the discussion or your roles in recent Dutch soccer actions and that wouldn't be a wise thing to do. The single upside that I do see in the discussion is that you guys get to blow some steam off after rather strong verdicts from many different peers, who treasure our rules. Yet another process in which I shouldn't intervene. You too are volunteers at Wikipedia and perhaps do make positive contributions in other areas. I hope you do. These kinds of discussions allow people to regroup, ideally also reflect, and move on. gidonb (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veeam

Hi, Gidonb and thank you for your message.
In 2013 I creation protected that particular article title following the outcome of this 2011 AfD discussion. Looking back now in 2017, and considering the history of the article Veeam Software, I have un-creation protected [[[Veeam]]. I note that the article does have some issues, but that's a matter to be discussed on its talk page.
Please fell free to ask me about this, or any other Wikipedia related questions you might have.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete/Shirt58, thank you for lifting a limitation in order to create the redirect. I was not trying to improve the article, just to make it accessible for users as is. I'm sure that the protection was relevant four years ago, however, time has passed and my request was responsive to the current situation. That was the only point I was trying to make. Thank you for your support! One more point: please try to keep discussions together. My page, your page, it doesn't matter. Things are easier to follow for others when at one place and the wikified names ping users anyway. Someone may want to look back at our interaction one day, hopefully, to reach the conclusion that what we did made great sense. You stand correct that talk pages are good places to discuss all matters related to an article but this one was a personal request to obtain editing rights. Thank you again for your awesome assistance! Best, gidonb (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan M. Broekman

"Dear Gidon, Many thanks for considering corrections in the Wiki Page about my Life and Work (of Jan M. Broekman). I do appreciate very much, but have one urgent question: You changed on 9/18/2017 at 11:43 my name of the English edition of the Wiki page from "Jan M. Broekman" to "Jan Broekman" on the top of the page and under the Photo. You argument, as I understood, is that middle names do not matter in a Wiki communication. In my case, my name was identical to the name of my father and my grandfather, so that I was always named "Jan M" in family circles, and adapted the "Jan M. Broekman" formula to ALL my publications. So your change of my name has deep feelings and a life history. Could you PLEASE be so kind to UNDO your mentioned correction? MANY thanks indeed! Kindly, Jan M. Broekman -----" --Meinolf Wewel (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan M, I understand the request however Jan Broekman is 3 times more common. Many articles refer to you first as Jan Broekman, then as Jan M, possibly because of your affection to the latter. For example here:

So while I look sympathetically at your request and personal story as an impartial WP editor I am actually against the idea. It's a matter of where I put my accents. Another editor may be less particular about your name and be, for example, really upset about an apparent conflict of interest that interest me less. We don't always how information arrives here and I'm vehemently against punishing people for honesty. I would let the whole thing go and please do not fall into an ownership trap either. Just sit back and watch if and how the entry will develop. We are not a place where people publish their own biographies (and get somewhat emotional about how they were commonly referred to) but a serious encyclopedia developing serious articles. Some users share information. I'm cool with that. If you can prove that Jan M. is your common name, as others refer to you, that may change things. From my research others refer to you as Jan Broekman and Jan M. is common only to bibliographies, where your personal style is copied. gidonb (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gidonb, I know Jan M. Broekman since 1970. I published 1971 his “Structuralism” in my function of executive director of the Karl Alber Publishing House. Jan M. Broekman designed with me in the following years the encyclopedic series “Kolleg Rechtstheorie”. All ten volumes of that series, including his own book “Recht und Anthropologie” were published under his proper name Jan M. Broekman. The “M.” (for ‘Maurits’) does truly belong to his name. His writing to you informed me how it came biographically to this ‘M’. The name ‘Jan M. Broekman’ was before this information already evidently the title of my German article as well as the designed English text and the attached photos.

Your changes of his name caused me to search in my library and look after all publications in several languages of Jan M. Broekman, which I possess. That investigation indicated that all publications were with the “M” in the name Jan M. Broekman. This addition of the “M.” is also important because it avoids any possibility of confusion with Jan Broekman, who is the Vice-President Global Engineering at CB&I.

Apart from the problem with the name, I must ask you to also delete the expression used in the first line after the indication of his birth place Voorburg: “... a Dutch-Belgian philosopher” because the indication “Dutch-Belgian” does not exist officially. This is a difficult issue in a three-lingual country where Flemish, German and French are constitutionally legitimized languages. My original sentence should be restored: please mention after “in Voorburg: The Netherlands,” the words: “lives since 1968 in Belgium”.

Since 10 years I work for Wiki – the first years under pseudonym and later under my real name “Meinolf Wewel” (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinolf_Wewel). I work since years as an examiner with global user account. My total number of handlings is 2.993, without any occurrence of blocking.

The “Jan M. Broekman” as an English article is not my first in the English Wikipedia. I have always consulted a translator, because my humanistic education emphasized Latin and Ancient Greek – an emphasis that never created any disadvantage. A change of the title of an article never happened during my Wikipedia work.

I do ask you urgently to provide my article and its photo its complete and correct name and change the language/nationality issue, in particular because I understand Wikipedia as an encyclopedia in the sense of Jimmy Wales. Please also consult my contribution to the 10th anniversary of Wikipedia in the book: “Everything About Wikipedia”(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Allesueberwikipedia.pdf).

--Meinolf Wewel (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time I have corrected the issue based on the relevant arguments and thank you for your efforts.Meinolf Wewel (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your "move". Articles are not moved through copy and paste or delete and save. Also no valid arguments were raised in your narrative above to make this change. It's a series of misconceptions leading to wrong conclusions. I'll get back to this later. I do want to tweak the article as well. gidonb (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

Thank you for your feedback. Would you care to consider giving your thoughts also on the other ones in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 24? Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chicbyaccident. Any time and in this case middle of the night. Thank you for the well considered nominations and caring so much about getting the categorization right. Awesome! gidonb (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Blair roles and notability

Since Blair is in a bunch of relatively unknown films and web series, the filmography should only include notable entries, ones that already have Wikipedia pages. Also essays and blog write-ups shouldn't have to be listed in publications. Many journalists and writers publish stuff all the time. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is definately place for improvement on what to show in the article! gidonb (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When the article had only been the one notable film, I didn't think it had a chance to survive notability, but it looks better now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Thank you for caring! gidonb (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Sang des Rothschild

You seem to be under the impression that Le Sang des Rothschild is an article in a magazine rather than a book. It's a book. - Nunh-huh 03:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check and fix if needed. Thank you regardless for raising the concern. Will put my findings here in a bit. gidonb (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a concern, it's a fact. -Nunh-huh 03:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!!! You're right. I will fix this right away. gidonb (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing done. gidonb (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked all and left these references in better shape than I found these. Again, the input was much appreciated. Next time please give it a little more time. The rushed approach with reverts is not recommended. Communication works much better. gidonb (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I communicated. The rushed approach to change correct references into incorrect references is also not recommended. You changed several articles, all of which correctly identified the reference as a book. That ought to have been a clue. Usually when people consult a source, they know if it's a magazine or a book. You can't just presume they were all wrong and you are right, you have to verify they were wrong and you are right. The time to check your facts and "make your findings" is before, not after, you make those changes and have been informed they were wrong. Sorry, editors changing correct information to incorrect information here presses my buttons, especially when it's on the basis of presumption (publisher also publishes a magazine, therefore all its publications are magazines) rather than say, fact checking gone wrong. I recognize that this was an error and not an intended consequence, but changing incorrect information back to correct information is not something I'm going to apologize for, rushed or not. - Nunh-huh 05:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nunh-huh, when editing a lot, there will occasionally be mistakes. The important part is to learn from these. That was my process and also my feedback. Best, gidonb (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]