User talk:NielsF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page.

I won't be checking this page often, so a notification on this page would be nice.

Contents 1 Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland! 2 My bot 3 AWB & Admin 4 Location Maps 5 nl.Ohnoitsjamie

[edit] Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland!

Beste,

Er wordt een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland georganiseerd. Er is al een voorlopig programma met lezingen van Jimbo Wales, Kurt Jansson en vele anderen, workshops en discussies over bijvoorbeeld de Easy Timeline, pywikipediabot en de toekomst van wiki[p/m]edia. Het zou me leuk lijken als je ook kon komen! Meld je snel aan op de inschrijfpagina, want we moeten snel weten hoeveel mensen er ongeveer komen! Stuur deze uitnodiging vooral ook door naar anderen die geïnteresseerd zouden kunnen zijn door {{subst:user:Effeietsanders/wcn}}~~~~ op hun overlegpagina's te plakken. Hoe meer zielen, hoe meer vreugd. Met vriendelijke groet,
NielsFTalk to me.. 22:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My bot

Hi, i need first to say that it's not my fault. I'm just runing automated bot pywikipedia that is working with featured articles. That bot desides what is featured article on nl: wiki by looking for all links in nl:Wikipedia:Etalage page. I will send email to creators of this bot to fix this error. Best way to solve this is to mayke list of featured file on nl: wiki by puting all pages that is linked with nl:Template:Etalage. Thanks for the tip. --SasaStefanovic • 00:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWB & Admin

How do I turn on that feature for myself / my colleagues (admins @ nl:), or isn't that possible on nl: ? It would come in very handy... Does it involve the simple adding of a header ==Admins==, or in Dutch ==Moderators== to the checkpage there, or is a special setting of the AWB needed? Cheers, Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 16:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

With the admins section, the full checkpage should look like this:

<!--enabledusersbegins-->
<!--enabledbots-->

== Bots ==
LIST_BOTS_HERE

<!--enabledbotsends-->

== Gebruikers ==
LIST_USERS_HERE

<!--adminsbegins-->

==Moderators==
LIST_ADMINS_HERE

<!--adminsends-->
<!--enabledusersends-->

—Mets501 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb 2007 20:26 (UTC)

I will not vote, but thanks for the reminder. I've unfortunately missed the first poll and am strongly opposed to any version of the Liuzzo-maps, so there's no option I can be satisfied with. Furthermore, there are no options for the Rei-artur maps and/or a modified version, for example in the same style of the old maps, thereof, if I grasp the extent of the poll correctly. On a side note, what's with the annoying linking of dates that has nothing to do with the text? Cheers, Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 22:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There was little discussion about the Rei-artur maps and those maps appear not to have been properly criticized at all on the Project Countries talk page. I just commented on those on another user's talk page, it will probably interest you. By the way, missing the first poll does not leave you out of the picture at all; as long as you are or further become aware of the arguments that were made, your opinion is as valuable for the new survey as anyone's. The dates are not linked (one might know that to be rather useless, though the links do work), but that is the only way users can see dates in the format they prefer as set by their personal WP settings, and are recommended to be used in articles as well: there too the 'link' is usually an undesired side-effect. I see these dates as 2006-11-16 etc, others as November 16, 2006. — SomeHuman 9 Feb 2007 01:28 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation you gave at Jobjörn's talk. To clarify: I'm not not voting because I haven't voted in the first poll, but because none of the options appeal to me, so whatever the outcome is, it's something I don't like. Also thanks for explaining why the dates where linked. Cheers, Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

URGENT, please. You have replaced the location map of the Netherlands with an unacceptable type. The EU-highlighted David Liuzzo maps had been in use by 25 of the 27 EU countries, including the Netherlands. User:Arnoutf suddenly decided to replace it (he is one of the major contributors at the relevant WikiProject Countries talk page and had now decided unilaterally as kind of making a WP:POINT). You should read the edit-coments on the edit-war between him and myself at the Netherlands. Unfortunately I would be in 3RR violation if I would once more revert or change the map. But the map you now put back there, is utterly unacceptable: only the (for unrelated reasons) protected article on the UK still has it (after it having had the EU highlighted but the protection incidentally came after one person had kept pushing the non-EU map in). Spain has an entirely different style of maps (for non-EU related reasons). ALL other EU member states use the EU-highlighted map, many (if not all) non-EU member states at the European continent use the style that you now put into the Netherlands article. That makes a completely false statement: This country is not a EU member, while in fact it is a founding country. I think you should accept what is accepted for (after your edit still) 24 of the 27 EU members, in any case the present David Liuzzo map must be removed because it clearly lies to the average reader, it's just as bad as someone writing in the article the text The Netherlands is not an EU member. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 24 Feb 2007 02:17 (UTC)

dag beste een mens, mooi staaltje van omdraaien van argumenten. Een overzichtskaartje hoort juist níets te zeggen over evt. samenwerkingsverbanden. Vandaar. Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the Dutch-language Wikipedia. Check this initial edit by Arnoutf immediately after the survey had closed at 2007-02-20 23:59:59. He simply put his personal favorite Artur-rei map in for which there had not been a proper survey (created while a poll was already going on) and which had only support by a small minority once the maps became known. Note that the 25 countries had not awaited the survey's outcome (turned out 8 for versus 9 against highlighting) wich is much less difference than 25 versus 2 at the EU countries' articles. Note that I had never put any map in any country's article at that time. I had kept to the WikiProject talk page and only put invitations to the survey in countries' talk pages. Anyway, if 25 against 2 (country articles, not individuals) entirely independent from myself, cannot convince you, than better put that Artur-rei map back in. The present one does tell a lie because it acts as cavalier-seul as if it were a non-EU country. Do not allow your personal POV to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. — SomeHuman 24 Feb 2007 02:39 (UTC)

Goh, dat wist ik nog niet (This is not..), als het niet helemaal duidelijk was dat ik hier niet híer over wil discussiëren, dan nu. Op Talk:Netherlands kunnen we beter verdergaan denk ik; al zal het niet nu meteen zijn... Het is al laat. Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nl.Ohnoitsjamie

Regarding your message on my en page; yes, please block that account. Door de manier, zal ik voor het eerst uw land in een paar weken bezoeken; Ik ben zeer opgewekt over het! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)