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)
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) /info/en/?search=Harry_Gruyaert solo exhibitions (selected) Collections (selected) example 2) /info/en/?search=Chris_Killip (selected joint exhibitions) example 3) /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
There is a discussion taking place, that you might be interested in here. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
"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)
-- Meinolf Wewel ( talk) 18:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) /info/en/?search=Harry_Gruyaert solo exhibitions (selected) Collections (selected) example 2) /info/en/?search=Chris_Killip (selected joint exhibitions) example 3) /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
There is a discussion taking place, that you might be interested in here. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
"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)
-- Meinolf Wewel ( talk) 18:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)