![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"At the moment, the Partij van de Arbeid (labour party) is the largest party in the polls, but the CDA is gaining ground. The recent coalition government of CDA (christian democrats), VVD (liberals) and D66 (social liberals) is unable to keep a majority in recent polls." And the campaiging has only been going on since Friday? A bit too early I think; and unsourced, so I'm cutting it. (The wiki is not a crystal ball.) Jon 13:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it also a bit early to put 'possible coalitions' into the polls-table. The combinations are endless and at this point most anything is possible. I happen to work in this field and I know for a fact that almost no combination is excluded at this point. Maybe a small section with a brief description of possibilities that are entertained in the media would be nice, but I feel this is too much. I will wait a few days and if no one comes up with a good argument to keep it, I will remove the possible coalition from the table.-- Dengo 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Let us get a few things straight here. This controversy or whatever it is, has less to do with historical fact and more to do with the marginalisation and humiliation of a minority. There is a lot of anti-turkish and anti-muslim prejudice in the netherlands and these are just the first glimpses of it coming out in the 2 major parties. The SS stormtroopers of the netherlands cant stand the fact that a Turk is going to become a high level minister and possibly in the future the prime minister. It is clearly aimed at kicking out minorities, namely the Turkish minority out of political power. Every member of the Dutch Turkish minority should boycott these jokes called "political parties" like pvda and cda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mertel ( talk • contribs)
I have remove this section from the article:
"A large section of the country's Turkish minority has decided to boycott the election due to the racist, one-sided historical views of the main political parties. Many in the communitu also see this as a move aimed at disenfranchising Turks from the political spectum. A boycott could potentially swing a virtual neck-to-neck ra`d to the detriment of the labor party since Turks traditionally vote heavily in favor of the pvda"
Not only is it poorly written, but is also unsourced, pov and not in line with recent polls (by focuz). C mon 20:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Elmaci gaf te kennen dat er momenteel totaal GEEN bewijs aanwezig is waardoor het een genocide betreft. Turkije heeft hun archief opengesteld voor de Armeense regering ivm onafhankelijke onderzoek, maar tot op heden is er geen reactie teruggekomen. Tijdens de 1ste wereldoorlog in 1915 zijn er van verschillende kanten slachtoffers gevallen, dus niet alleen aan de Armeense kant maar ook Turkische. Wat is de clue van deze hele ophef rond de "Armeense genocide" ? Niets wat op enigszins de waarheid berust. Sinds wanneer bepaalt het Nederlandse politiek wanneer iets een "genocide" betreft? Nederland en de Europese Unie zijn wel iets slimmer ingeschat om EERST met 100% proof bewijzen te komen voordat er vanuit de politiek een standpunt wordt ingenomen die NIET strookt met de werkelijkheid. Laat deze kwestie gewoon over aan DE HISTORICI, en we in Nederland ons gewoon bezig houden met de huidige zaken: Onderwijs, economie en gezondheidszorg - Zeynep , Utrecht
I was thinking it would be nice to make a map showing the results based on Geographical location. Some images we could use include Image:Nederland gemeenten 2006.png (this one might be too much work though) or Image:Provinces of the Netherlands.svg. This would be something like what's done at verkiezingsuitslagen.nl (site by the kiesraad). Would the graphs on that site be in the public domain? jaco♫ plane 07:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok well I created a simple map with the "kieskringen" based on Image:Nederland gemeenten 2006.png and this. Once the results are in we just have to create a legend for the different parties and then color in the largest parties. I think we should do it per kieskring, except if someone knows how to work with a geographic information system to map the results to individual municipalities. jaco♫ plane 11:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Another option could be to get rid of the electoral districts altogether, and go by the municipalities. The map could show party by party who is strong where. The map of support for the PvdA for instance would be based on varying shades of the colour red, CDA green, VVD blue, etc., with the shades becoming darker as the percentage of votes increases. A ecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
PvdA-SP-GL-CU ? Sure theoretically it's possible but is it realistic? CU: anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-gay marriage in a single cabinet with GL. I can't see it happening. On the other hand, it looks like the Dutch voters are going to make it extremely difficult to form any sort of coalition. 146.50.208.168 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
this was imho a non-issue, so i took the libery to delete it. Aleichem 03:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to say "good job" to everyone who has worked on this article, and on related articles. I don't think I've ever seen an article on an election that was this good before the election took place. This article will probably be one of the most read sources for this election in the international community, and having this level of quality definitely helps foreigners understand Dutch politics better. Next up, let's make an effort to make this a featured article after the election! jaco♫ plane 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about this section. The only source [4] dates from 2004. I think we need some more recent confirmation that these experiments are taking place, personally I haven't really read anything about it in the media. jaco♫ plane 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
EENNL 1 PVDD 2 SGP 2 D66 2 GL 6 CU 7 PVV 8 VVD 20 SP 30 PVDA 34 CDA 38 Intangible 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
EENNL 1 D66 2 SGP 2 PVDD 3 CU 5 PVV 6 GL 8 VVD 21 SP 24 PVDA 35 CDA 43 Intangible 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I put them in the table as they differ significantly from yesterday's results. Let's see what happens for real. Arnoutf 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The coalitions table uses 'Christian left' twice, both for CDA-PvdA, which makes perfect sense, and PvdA-SP-GL-CU, which makes little sense because the christian part (CU) consitutes only about 8% of the coalition. I don't recall now if this term was used in the media or that I only read it here. Also, why is 'christian' written with a capital 'C'? DirkvdM 09:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Msikma moved the article from Dutch general election, 2006 to 2006 Dutch general election. However, all (?) other 'Dutch general election' articles have the former format. If this is against waht is customary on Wikipedia then all those have to be moved as well. DirkvdM 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest to remove or at least reduce the paragraph about climate change. Research results shown on NOS television on the day of election showed that they were not in the top 5 of issues that moved voters' decision. Also, some of the coalitions listed are extremely unlikely: GroenLinks for example has strongy agitated against CDA and VVD. They still might form a coalition with one of those parties, but definitely not with both of them. Sjoerd de Vries, 15.33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The comment with the foto is a bit strange, Only a few muncipalities used paper(5? i think, including a few with broken down machines), and only two parts of amsterdam. 80.57.243.174 18:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Still not many. More like 'some' or 'a minority'. many would be like over half ok? this suggests it is a significant portion of votes. 80.57.243.174 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The bit about PvdV in the final debate got altered, focusing on how the discussion went. I added that because of the importance of even VVD not being interrested in entering a coalition with PvdV. It's the fifth biggest party and considering the difficulties with finding a workable coalition that fact is quite noteworthy. I'll rewrite it to avoid the issue. DirkvdM 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
For now I reordered the table with above the split all coalitions that have a history of forming a coalition. All other coalitions may be listed below the split; but that section needs some cleanup after negotiations start in full. Arnoutf 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion seems to evolve around whether all possible coalitions should be in the table or only the most likely ones. The problem with the latter is that it is difficult to asses which are possible (without specific quotes it really is OR). Including all possibilities would generate a very long list, but that could be seen as making a point. And it would end the above discussion. Ultimately, when the coalition is formed, that whole section should be moved to a separate article anyway, so it's a thought. Any ideas? DirkvdM 14:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Do we need this section any more ( Dutch_general_election,_2006#Parties_and_top_candidates)? Seems a bit redundant to me. AndrewRT( Talk) 21:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The map showing the largest party per municipality isn't very useful. The Dutch national elections don't work that way. It would be informative, though, to know which way people vote in varous parts of the Netherlands, but for that it would make more sense to group the left and right together, say blue for CDA, VVD, PvdV and SGP and red for the rest. Notice that 'the rest' (the left) constitutes 6 parties and the right only 4, which is part of the problem - of course a right wing party will then be the biggest party in most municipalities. Another idea would be to make a map for each party, showing how big they were in each municipality. That said, I'm not going to do this, just a hint for anyone who might be so inclined. :) DirkvdM 10:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The map may bot be very appropiate given how things are done in NL at present, but does give an interesting glimse into what the Political landscape of NL would look like if it had a 'first past the post' system of electing MPs. Though i guess maybe that would belong better in an entry on possible (wishfull thinking) political reform in the Netherlands. Still, its an interesting map, derserves to be on the wiki somewhere at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.190.150 ( talk • contribs)
The image Image:ZetelsTK2006.png needs to be updated to reflect the seat exchange between SP & PvdA. I haven't got access to a spreadsheet at the moment, so perhaps someone else could create an updated version. jaco♫ plane 18:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we split the part about coalition talks off to 2006 Dutch cabinet formation: the article is getting very long and the formation talks are something different from the elections. C mon 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I moved this page to 2006 Dutch general election, which is the correct name. It was moved back to this name a while afterwards. I don't see why, seen as how all events tied to a specific year use this format. See, for example, the articles in Template:Arab-Israeli_Conflict. function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage) { 09:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Should a table be made that show the votes per candidate (or at least of those candidates who obtained a vote larger than the electoral quota)? Intangible 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There are only two interesting results there. The election of D66 no6 on personal votes; and the votes on Verdonk (>Rutte). The rest does not look that interesting. Arnoutf 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to resurrect my previous idea to change the current naming convention for elections. The current convention is:
I propose this is changed to allow two alternatives, as follows:
This new option would make linking more natural and make the article names more encyclopedic.
Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#New elections proposal
Thanks AndrewRT( Talk) 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
i was begining to worry. the dutch had gone right on us. and so did germany, sweden, canada, france, uk, denmark.
In different tables, graphs and articles the Dutch political parties are given different colors. I would like to propose a standard list of RGB colours to use consistently. Please react to my proposal for consistent RGB colour scheme discussed at
Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands/colours. thanks for any input
Arnoutf 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Strike-through text
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dutch general election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Dutch general election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"At the moment, the Partij van de Arbeid (labour party) is the largest party in the polls, but the CDA is gaining ground. The recent coalition government of CDA (christian democrats), VVD (liberals) and D66 (social liberals) is unable to keep a majority in recent polls." And the campaiging has only been going on since Friday? A bit too early I think; and unsourced, so I'm cutting it. (The wiki is not a crystal ball.) Jon 13:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it also a bit early to put 'possible coalitions' into the polls-table. The combinations are endless and at this point most anything is possible. I happen to work in this field and I know for a fact that almost no combination is excluded at this point. Maybe a small section with a brief description of possibilities that are entertained in the media would be nice, but I feel this is too much. I will wait a few days and if no one comes up with a good argument to keep it, I will remove the possible coalition from the table.-- Dengo 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Let us get a few things straight here. This controversy or whatever it is, has less to do with historical fact and more to do with the marginalisation and humiliation of a minority. There is a lot of anti-turkish and anti-muslim prejudice in the netherlands and these are just the first glimpses of it coming out in the 2 major parties. The SS stormtroopers of the netherlands cant stand the fact that a Turk is going to become a high level minister and possibly in the future the prime minister. It is clearly aimed at kicking out minorities, namely the Turkish minority out of political power. Every member of the Dutch Turkish minority should boycott these jokes called "political parties" like pvda and cda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mertel ( talk • contribs)
I have remove this section from the article:
"A large section of the country's Turkish minority has decided to boycott the election due to the racist, one-sided historical views of the main political parties. Many in the communitu also see this as a move aimed at disenfranchising Turks from the political spectum. A boycott could potentially swing a virtual neck-to-neck ra`d to the detriment of the labor party since Turks traditionally vote heavily in favor of the pvda"
Not only is it poorly written, but is also unsourced, pov and not in line with recent polls (by focuz). C mon 20:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Elmaci gaf te kennen dat er momenteel totaal GEEN bewijs aanwezig is waardoor het een genocide betreft. Turkije heeft hun archief opengesteld voor de Armeense regering ivm onafhankelijke onderzoek, maar tot op heden is er geen reactie teruggekomen. Tijdens de 1ste wereldoorlog in 1915 zijn er van verschillende kanten slachtoffers gevallen, dus niet alleen aan de Armeense kant maar ook Turkische. Wat is de clue van deze hele ophef rond de "Armeense genocide" ? Niets wat op enigszins de waarheid berust. Sinds wanneer bepaalt het Nederlandse politiek wanneer iets een "genocide" betreft? Nederland en de Europese Unie zijn wel iets slimmer ingeschat om EERST met 100% proof bewijzen te komen voordat er vanuit de politiek een standpunt wordt ingenomen die NIET strookt met de werkelijkheid. Laat deze kwestie gewoon over aan DE HISTORICI, en we in Nederland ons gewoon bezig houden met de huidige zaken: Onderwijs, economie en gezondheidszorg - Zeynep , Utrecht
I was thinking it would be nice to make a map showing the results based on Geographical location. Some images we could use include Image:Nederland gemeenten 2006.png (this one might be too much work though) or Image:Provinces of the Netherlands.svg. This would be something like what's done at verkiezingsuitslagen.nl (site by the kiesraad). Would the graphs on that site be in the public domain? jaco♫ plane 07:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok well I created a simple map with the "kieskringen" based on Image:Nederland gemeenten 2006.png and this. Once the results are in we just have to create a legend for the different parties and then color in the largest parties. I think we should do it per kieskring, except if someone knows how to work with a geographic information system to map the results to individual municipalities. jaco♫ plane 11:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Another option could be to get rid of the electoral districts altogether, and go by the municipalities. The map could show party by party who is strong where. The map of support for the PvdA for instance would be based on varying shades of the colour red, CDA green, VVD blue, etc., with the shades becoming darker as the percentage of votes increases. A ecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
PvdA-SP-GL-CU ? Sure theoretically it's possible but is it realistic? CU: anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-gay marriage in a single cabinet with GL. I can't see it happening. On the other hand, it looks like the Dutch voters are going to make it extremely difficult to form any sort of coalition. 146.50.208.168 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
this was imho a non-issue, so i took the libery to delete it. Aleichem 03:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to say "good job" to everyone who has worked on this article, and on related articles. I don't think I've ever seen an article on an election that was this good before the election took place. This article will probably be one of the most read sources for this election in the international community, and having this level of quality definitely helps foreigners understand Dutch politics better. Next up, let's make an effort to make this a featured article after the election! jaco♫ plane 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about this section. The only source [4] dates from 2004. I think we need some more recent confirmation that these experiments are taking place, personally I haven't really read anything about it in the media. jaco♫ plane 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
EENNL 1 PVDD 2 SGP 2 D66 2 GL 6 CU 7 PVV 8 VVD 20 SP 30 PVDA 34 CDA 38 Intangible 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
EENNL 1 D66 2 SGP 2 PVDD 3 CU 5 PVV 6 GL 8 VVD 21 SP 24 PVDA 35 CDA 43 Intangible 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I put them in the table as they differ significantly from yesterday's results. Let's see what happens for real. Arnoutf 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The coalitions table uses 'Christian left' twice, both for CDA-PvdA, which makes perfect sense, and PvdA-SP-GL-CU, which makes little sense because the christian part (CU) consitutes only about 8% of the coalition. I don't recall now if this term was used in the media or that I only read it here. Also, why is 'christian' written with a capital 'C'? DirkvdM 09:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Msikma moved the article from Dutch general election, 2006 to 2006 Dutch general election. However, all (?) other 'Dutch general election' articles have the former format. If this is against waht is customary on Wikipedia then all those have to be moved as well. DirkvdM 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest to remove or at least reduce the paragraph about climate change. Research results shown on NOS television on the day of election showed that they were not in the top 5 of issues that moved voters' decision. Also, some of the coalitions listed are extremely unlikely: GroenLinks for example has strongy agitated against CDA and VVD. They still might form a coalition with one of those parties, but definitely not with both of them. Sjoerd de Vries, 15.33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The comment with the foto is a bit strange, Only a few muncipalities used paper(5? i think, including a few with broken down machines), and only two parts of amsterdam. 80.57.243.174 18:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Still not many. More like 'some' or 'a minority'. many would be like over half ok? this suggests it is a significant portion of votes. 80.57.243.174 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The bit about PvdV in the final debate got altered, focusing on how the discussion went. I added that because of the importance of even VVD not being interrested in entering a coalition with PvdV. It's the fifth biggest party and considering the difficulties with finding a workable coalition that fact is quite noteworthy. I'll rewrite it to avoid the issue. DirkvdM 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
For now I reordered the table with above the split all coalitions that have a history of forming a coalition. All other coalitions may be listed below the split; but that section needs some cleanup after negotiations start in full. Arnoutf 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion seems to evolve around whether all possible coalitions should be in the table or only the most likely ones. The problem with the latter is that it is difficult to asses which are possible (without specific quotes it really is OR). Including all possibilities would generate a very long list, but that could be seen as making a point. And it would end the above discussion. Ultimately, when the coalition is formed, that whole section should be moved to a separate article anyway, so it's a thought. Any ideas? DirkvdM 14:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Do we need this section any more ( Dutch_general_election,_2006#Parties_and_top_candidates)? Seems a bit redundant to me. AndrewRT( Talk) 21:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The map showing the largest party per municipality isn't very useful. The Dutch national elections don't work that way. It would be informative, though, to know which way people vote in varous parts of the Netherlands, but for that it would make more sense to group the left and right together, say blue for CDA, VVD, PvdV and SGP and red for the rest. Notice that 'the rest' (the left) constitutes 6 parties and the right only 4, which is part of the problem - of course a right wing party will then be the biggest party in most municipalities. Another idea would be to make a map for each party, showing how big they were in each municipality. That said, I'm not going to do this, just a hint for anyone who might be so inclined. :) DirkvdM 10:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The map may bot be very appropiate given how things are done in NL at present, but does give an interesting glimse into what the Political landscape of NL would look like if it had a 'first past the post' system of electing MPs. Though i guess maybe that would belong better in an entry on possible (wishfull thinking) political reform in the Netherlands. Still, its an interesting map, derserves to be on the wiki somewhere at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.190.150 ( talk • contribs)
The image Image:ZetelsTK2006.png needs to be updated to reflect the seat exchange between SP & PvdA. I haven't got access to a spreadsheet at the moment, so perhaps someone else could create an updated version. jaco♫ plane 18:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we split the part about coalition talks off to 2006 Dutch cabinet formation: the article is getting very long and the formation talks are something different from the elections. C mon 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I moved this page to 2006 Dutch general election, which is the correct name. It was moved back to this name a while afterwards. I don't see why, seen as how all events tied to a specific year use this format. See, for example, the articles in Template:Arab-Israeli_Conflict. function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage) { 09:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Should a table be made that show the votes per candidate (or at least of those candidates who obtained a vote larger than the electoral quota)? Intangible 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There are only two interesting results there. The election of D66 no6 on personal votes; and the votes on Verdonk (>Rutte). The rest does not look that interesting. Arnoutf 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to resurrect my previous idea to change the current naming convention for elections. The current convention is:
I propose this is changed to allow two alternatives, as follows:
This new option would make linking more natural and make the article names more encyclopedic.
Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#New elections proposal
Thanks AndrewRT( Talk) 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
i was begining to worry. the dutch had gone right on us. and so did germany, sweden, canada, france, uk, denmark.
In different tables, graphs and articles the Dutch political parties are given different colors. I would like to propose a standard list of RGB colours to use consistently. Please react to my proposal for consistent RGB colour scheme discussed at
Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands/colours. thanks for any input
Arnoutf 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Strike-through text
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dutch general election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Dutch general election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)