Thanks for creating Donald Clark Hodges.
I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Please avoid personal opinions, or writing style that resembles unattributed personal opinions, per WP:OR. Who says Hodges "studied Machiavelli extremely well"? See also WP:PUFFERY. Lastly, the "About the author" section in a book by the subject should be replaced by more independent , reliable sources per WP:NPOV. Cheers.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Animalparty}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
--Animalparty! ( talk) 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Animalparty: We don't need an expert to see Hodges read Machiavelli well. If you see his book on Deep Republicanism it will become clear within a few pages. [1] I am not an expert on South America. Let's wait if one arrives here. Taksen ( talk) 07:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
You spend a lot of time writing a reply. In between you could have changed the article on Hodges many times. Why did not you? What is so difficult about that? Taksen ( talk) 06:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC) This discussion actually belongs on the talk page. I don't understand you interest in changing me, and not the article. Taksen ( talk) 06:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Taksen,
Thanks for creating René-François Dumas! I edit here too, under the username Crystallizedcarbon and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
Please add references with in-depth coverage about the subject from independent reliable sources to the article to meet our verifiability requirements.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Crystallizedcarbon}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 07:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The article Edme-Bonaventure Courtois has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This biography of a deceased person doesn't cite any sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
TruthToBeSpoken
(talk) 09:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm TruthToBeSpoken. I noticed that you created articles without citing any sources. Please stop creating articles (especially biographies) without citing any sources. This is not allowed per WP:RS. I've proposed the following biographies of deceased persons you wrote for deletion: Edme-Bonaventure Courtois and Antoine Marie Charles Garnier. Please cite your sources next time, and consider adding reliable sources for the above article. TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
These articles were created an hour ago. These people were involved in the coup that led to the fall of Robespierre. You may never heard of them, neither did I, but that does not mean they were unimportant. I think 24 hours is a reasonable amount of time to improve them. It is hard to believe anyone else on the English Wikipedia will improve them. Taksen ( talk) 09:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia used to be a platform where people assist each other to improve an article, did the rules change? Taksen ( talk) 09:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Taksen I have the page Maximilien Robespierre on my watchlist and have been following your edits there with great interest for some time. I have not looked at all the individual changes you've made but I can see that you have improved the article considerably. I've re-read the entire article today and here and there I've found a few places where I'd like to suggest some changes. I'll do this on the article talk page and it may take some time for me to pull out specific items for comment and discussion. Before I started doing that though, I wanted to contact you directly to say how much I appreciate the improvements you've made and let you know that in raising specific points, I'm not intending to be critical of the overall very positive impact your work has achieved. All the best Mccapra ( talk) 12:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I tidied a bunch of citations in the article, just a heads up that aside from the Cite button on the visual editor, Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books is a good tool for google books citations, and Citer for others. Quuux ( talk) 01:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
"not so easy to find out who is who", haha! You bet! Sorting out all the Swedish documents about the family was a nightmare... Thanks for adding some facts about the branch of the family not so well known up here. Just be sure to add refs as to where you have found the facts, please. cart -Talk 15:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Today I concentrated on the text. I cannot get familiar with all the names and deliver at the same time proper refs, sorry. I am happy I found out more about the Grill members in Amsterdam. To me the story looks almost complete. Taksen ( talk) 03:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Johannes Grill who cooperated with his brother Anthoni (1705-1783) seems to be the biggest problem, it seems he never married and perhaps moved to Stockholm in 1773 with his relatives? Taksen ( talk) 10:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Could you please specify which Louis De Geer you are writing about. The link now goes to a disambiguation page. And since there is quite a lot of info ín the sections, could you please add where the sister stayed behind, just to make it easier for the readers. Is this correct: "Their sister Helena Catharina (1739-1804) stayed behind in Amsterdam." Thanks, cart -Talk 21:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Just a small reminder: Blogs are not admissible as sources on English Wikipedia, so the refs you have added from such may be removed. You should also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, your use of words such as "lots of" or "huge" is not good encyclopedic language. You have once again changed the section with the "During the Thirty Years' War, the protestant city was occupied by a Bavarian army but recaptured by the Swedish army in April 1632." Now there is no explanation to why this is mentioned there. You have to write how this event is linked to the people in the article. Readers will not automatically make the connections you make in your head. cart -Talk 09:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
When you add material to Claes Grill or Adolf Ulric Grill, please do it at their articles. Their section at the Grill family is only a short summery and should not contain any detailed material. Thanks, -- cart -Talk 09:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I see you are a major editor of Gabriël Metsu, so I’m hoping you may be able to answer a question for me, I’m not an art historian, but do understand there is sometimes a double entendre or sub-plot to Golden Age genre art. If so, can you tell me what is happening in Metsu’s “ Man visiting a lady washing her hands? Is the hand washing symbolising the woman’s purity, or is the woman hoaxing the man with the maid’s complicity or am I wrong completely? I would greatly value your opinion. Kind regards Giano (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Taksen, I made a change to what you wrote about the Zwaanendael Colony. There were actually two survivors of the massacre in 1632, two boys who were captured by the indians and later transferred north, ultimately to be servants of Jesuit missionaries. I left a citation to the publication, but I can also send you an except from the book if you like. Cheers and happy new year! Bellis103 ( talk) 20:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Bellis103
Re: "not many people read Polish": it doesn't matter (much). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
In
your edit of 05:47, 24 February 2020 of
Maximilien Robespierre, you commented out <ref name="The Jacobin Clubs">{{cite book|last=Kennedy|first=Michael|title=The Jacobin Clubs in the French Revolution, 1793-1795|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t1yYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17|date=2000-05-01|publisher=Berghahn Books|isbn=978-1-78920-576-3|page=17}}</ref>
, so the other use of <ref name="The Jacobin Clubs" />
did not work. I have fixed it. —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 21:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
for that accidental rollback on the Robespierre entry. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 14:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your additions to this article! I'm not sure I have time to use it right now, but you might be interested to know that a great source on him and Dutch printing history was recently made available for free: Charles Enschede's Type Foundries In The Netherlands which was recently digitised by the Noord-Hollands Archief.
It's great to see these additions, but would it be OK if you cited sources for additions you make? They sound right to me, but the Dutch-language Wikipedia article has no line-by-line sourcing (although its sources look legit to me) it's hard to trust it. Blythwood ( talk) 16:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions! (Bit depressing to see he was having financial problems in the 1660s, I had the impression he was doing OK by then...) in Once again, it's great that you're adding this information but I am begging you to give clear explanations about where this information is coming from: "from city archive" in the edit summary is not going to help future scholars reading this Wikipedia article who want to build on your knowledge in ten or twenty years time-it needs to be cited to a specific document and (if it's something obscure and hard to access) a quote from the document is a good move. In my additions to the Joan Michaël Fleischman article I cited contemporary newspapers and transcribed out what they were saying: it would be really great to have such documentation here. Blythwood ( talk) 03:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Your edit to Bank of Amsterdam has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
PD-notice}}
after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Sorry for the mistake. —
Diannaa (
talk) 20:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Greetings
It seems contributed to women's rights related articles.
Please do visit Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları an article about commoner women's slavery in Ottoman times. I have been looking for more contribution and expansion to Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları from editors who have been contributing to women's rights related articles. Kindly do help expand the article Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları, if you find yourself interested.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 16:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Your edit to Asiento de Negros has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This edit was made last year in June, but I am warning you because you have made repeated copyright violations in the past. I have removed the violation but your copying is unacceptable. Sennecaster ( What now?) 05:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/37837/9789004416451_webready_content_text.pdf, which is not released under a compatible license. CC-BY-NC 4.0 license is not a compatible license. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
When I checked that particular article on copyright, I found this:
https://brill.com/view/book/9789004416451/front-4.xml
This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC 4.0 license, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. Further information and the complete license text can be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Taksen ( talk) 00:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
After contacting the publisher I understand the limitations do not have to do with them. The policy to limit the use of the article is introduced by Wikipedia, or some bureaucrats. Taksen ( talk) 11:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Your edit to Jacques Necker has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. — Diannaa ( talk) 14:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I have found additional copyright material that I had to remove from the same article. You added some of it quite a while ago. Please don't do this anymore. Everything you add to Wikipedia has to be written in your own words. Short quotations are allowed, but only when there's no alternative – you must write your own prose. Many copyright violations are being automatically detected by a bot. Be aware – stop copying now, or you risk a block.— Diannaa ( talk) 14:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like there's still more to do, but I have to go to work now. I will finish later.— Diannaa ( talk) 14:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Ben, I seem to be the main author of the above mentioned article. I am a little surprised because the article has already plenty of references and you want even more. The amount of page number you want to see is overwhelming. It looks as if you want everything presented on a tea tray, but if the article on line has no page numbers it was impossible to add them. (Unfortunately someone in the past also deleted or did not add page the numbers when he or she improved the references. I have no idea who it was.) I hope you are a French speaking Canadian. If you open the links you get an idea how difficult and confusing this topic is. I am not interested in going back to the article to improve it. It was just an attempt to understand what happened, then I moved to Robespierre, also not easy but more rewarding. Some of your questions might be answered there. Good luck. Taksen ( talk) 20:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
It was Bumbubookworm. He is an expert on swimmers and Vietnam. I am sorry, even the history of the article was difficult to understand. Taksen ( talk) 13:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Only now I understand what happened. The article was used on the main page. In the old days the moderators would tell or warn you, but they skipped that. As a contributor to the article I am shocked each time. Did it help to ask in such a short time before the publication for more details? I would say no. Taksen ( talk) 14:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the start of your comment at Talk:Frederick the Great, which is a blatant personal attack. I thought your comment on the other editor's gender was particularly inappropriate. I find it hard to believe that in 15 years and 20k edits you've never read WP:NPA, but I would suggest re-reading it now, apologizing on the editor's talk page, and re-factoring your comments to focus entirely on the content in the article and not on the contributor. Even if you don't think much of their work, we can only make the encyclopedia better by working together. Wham2001 ( talk) 07:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
..I find your accusation that wtfiv is female to be hilarious, and juvenile. FYI HE is a 61 year old male, a PhD,and teaches psychology in college, is published, a peer reviewer in his field. What are your credentials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.43.122 ( talk) 01:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
I fail to see how the War and Peace characters category is relevant in light of that. In any case, the bigger issue is that you should not revert without giving a reason. That is a failure in communication and otherwise impolite as it implies you don't even want to start discussing it. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Beautiful lay out but I am not interested in discussing with you. You obviously never read the parts of the book, did not check my addition. Otherwise you would have known better. Taksen ( talk) 05:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
Please slow down! Many of your copy edits are valuable, but others are introducing errors - for example, confusing "effect" and "affect", replacing valid subjunctive forms with incorrect constructions ("that he be" and "that she marry" are correct in context, not "that he is" and "that she marries"). Many others consist of replacing valid British spellings ("afterwards", "travelled", "cancelled") with American ones in a haphazard way, deleting grammatical articles that change the sense of a phrase, or changing original archaic forms in quoted material. Please read carefully, and try to understand the meaning of a phrase before changing it.
Best wishes,
Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 11:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
You owe Jean-de-Nivelle some gratitude for correcting some serious problems you created there. It can be very tedious work to find them in a mass edit like the one you did on Christina. Besides the British spelling, other examples were: Line 55 the chancellor (position) or Chancellor Axel ... (title); Line 95 you had the verb "were" twice in the sentence; Line 118 "reduced" made no sense, "educed" was correct; Line 157 no such English word as "canon". I agree that you should be more careful in all the otherwise good work you do. Why correct the English of other editors at all? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 02:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Line 216 "beings" is not connect there.
Hello Serge, do you mean connected? (See above, the last sentence.) Please don't tell me what to do, this is not a church, although I sometimes think Wikipedia is like a religion, one can be blocked "for eternity". Besides, it wasn't a mass edit, it only took five minutes, not more. I think most Americans like to exaggerate.
I am here for more than 15 years. De Nivelle arrived here a year ago and made two changes a day on average. Besides he has no profile, which did not attract me. To be more clear I don't trust people without a profile. But, he turned out to be more serious than I expected and checked all the changes I (or Grammarly) proposed. He even checked Jan Jacobsz. Hinlopen an article where almost nobody goes, which I started 15 years ago. I am sure an article needs every now and then a little dynamite to attract new readers and reactions. If you go there too you can notice yourself most of the changes had nothing to do with my previous changes. Anyhow his contribution to spelling and grammar is useful.
As I mentioned above, the program puts the commas in the right place, all the other changes should be checked by a native speaker and with linguistic knowledge which he has to my surprise. I needed a native speaker to check to value of the changes proposed by Grammarly. It is better to use the program only for the commas. But there are also a few typical mistakes made by Dutch people writing English for which it can be useful. I would not be surprised Grammarly will check the changes and corrections and ask me for my opinion within a couple of days. A few years ago, to my surprise, I was one of their top editors.
Another problem with the internet is the laziness of the reader. It is hard to believe most readers succeed to arrive at the end of the article. They decide to leave within a few seconds and seem to prefer to watch videos and pictures. This is a serious problem that will be hard to solve. Taksen ( talk) 06:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I guess we human beings spent ten percent of our time on repairing mistakes. Also computer programs have mistakes, Wikipedia is not a exception. It seems we learn most from our mistakes. For years I am producing articles; it is nice to look at an article in a rather different way. The pandemic forces us to slow down, and look closer at what we did. We need no more headmasters; there are already enough of them. The article on the Insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793 really improved, thanks to the program and Jean, not to you. Goodnight. Taksen ( talk) 02:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to template a regular, but it appears that you tried to give Thomas Hope (banker, born 1769) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Thomas Hope (1769–1831). This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, please move articles using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. It can also move the talk pages to keep them consistent. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else.
In this case, the article title had been decided per discussion at Talk:Thomas Hope (banker, born 1704)#Requested move 3 November 2018, so any further moves would be best done after another RM.
If there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thanks, Certes ( talk) 18:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to British credit crisis of 1772-1773 has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I don’t understand this sentence you wrote: “After 1670 when the Spanish Empire declined substantially they outsourced part of the slave trade to the Dutch (1685-1687), the Portuguese, the French (1698-1713) and the English (1713-1750), also providing Dutch, British and French America from the Caribbean islands were there organized depots.” The underlined part is impossible for me to understand. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I see in a recent addition to February Revolution you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add your personal opinions to articles as you did at Christina of Sweden recently. Article content is not supposed to reflect our personal opinions as given in edit summaries but is to be cited to reliable sources and/or be the product of consensus on talk pages. One would expect you to know that and act accordingly. I am quite surprised at these latest actions of yours. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
It is your opinion that Queen Maria Eleonora of Sweden was "considered insane". I am asking you again not to add your personal opinions to Wikipedia articles without citing reliable references or achieving consensus on article talk pages for whatever you wish to add. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 03:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
According to Bourdon, Méda then hit Couthon's adjutant in his leg.[555][556][557][558][559] Couthon was found lying at the bottom of a staircase in a corner, having fallen from the back of his gendarme. The unperturbed Saint-Just gave himself up without a word. According to Méda, Hanriot tried to escape by a concealed staircase to the third floor and his apartment.[560] Most sources say that Hanriot was thrown out of a window by Coffinhal after being accused of the disaster. (According to Ernest Hamel, it is one of the many legends spread by Barère.[561]) Whatever the case, Hanriot landed in a small courtyard on a heap of glass.[518] He had strength enough to crawl into a drain where he was found twelve hours later and taken to the Conciergerie.[518] Coffinhal, who had successfully escaped, was arrested seven days later, totally exhausted.
Once again here you have corrupted the cited source by changing the article text to include your personal unsourced opinion. This is another warning to stop doing things like that. They do serious damage to this project. Do not add any personal opinions of yours to any article unless they are supported by reliable sources and do not change any article text so that that text no longer coincides with a source already cited for it. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to Maximilien Robespierre has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi thanks for creating this article. When we translate or borrow from other language wikis it’s a requirement to acknowledge the source. The best way to do this is to include it in your edit summary (e.g. “translated from fr.wiki”) and there’s also a translation template you can add to the talk page. I’ve added it for you. All the best Mccapra ( talk) 09:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there!
I noticed you undid most of what I removed on the Robespierre article.
I feel most of the things there are not needed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should have an encyclopedic style. For example, "On Sunday 27 July, the weather was stormy." Is an unneeded detail, and reads like it's trying to create an atmosphere, like a novel.
"An encyclopedic style with a formal tone is important: straightforward, just-the-facts, instead of essay-like, argumentative, or opinionated." From Help: Editing. Currently the article is very essay like and opinionated, so I'm planning on going through the whole article soon and trying to remove unneeded stuff. Although, I admit I can over do things. If I remove anything you deem needed, please let me know! I hope you and I can create the best version of the article together. Natasha862 ( talk) 07:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Greetings Taksen:
I wanted to contact you in regards to two changes I made to some information you added to this article.
First change: the commissioning of Haydn’s Paris Symphonies.
You wrote: “In 1784 he commissioned Joseph Haydn to write six symphonies for them.” The symphonies were commissioned by Claude-François-Marie Rigoley, Comte d'Ogny. D'Ogny merely asked Bologne to write to Haydn to work out the details of the commission. My source of this information is H.C. Robbins Landon, a musicologist who is one of the leading authorities on Haydn.
In addition, your reference was Warwick Lister’s “The First Performance of Haydn’s ‘Paris’ Symphonies,” Eighteenth-Century Music 1, no. 2 (2004): 289–300. There is nothing in that essay stating Bologne commissioned the symphonies.
Second change: about the symphonie concertante form. Your statement “In 1775, he introduced the symphonie concertante…” was incorrect. There are numerous examples of works in this form from before 1775. For example, there is Johann Christian Bach’s Symphonie Concertante in G, SC 1, for two violins, cello and orchestra which was first played on or about 20 February 1772 in London.
Best regards,
Siegfried1876 Siegfried1876 ( talk) 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Ik neem aan dat je akkoord bent als ik je in het Nederlands toeschrijf? Ik heb net een revisie op Patriottentijd voor je "vervolmaakt". Maar ik wil het nu over iets heel anders hebben. Ik ben al sinds sinds februari 2008 op Wikipedia bezig (Mijn eerste edit was op Amboyna Massacre), en ik heb me sindsdien groen en geel geergerd aan de gewoonte van veel Amerikaanse Wikipedianen om Nederlandse namen met een voorvoegsel onjuist te "hoofdletteren" (capitalize). Ik gebruik altijd Antonie van Leeuwenhoek als voorbeeld, maar het gebeurt op veel grotere schaal. Het probleem zit er in dat de Voorschriften van de Nederlandse Taalunie boven de Amerikaanse pet gaan. Ze zien "van" met een kleine letter geschreven in de persoonsnaam en concluderen dan dat "dus" ook de achternaam met een kleine letter moet. Het komt in de beste kringen voor. Simon Schama, die ik overigens hoog heb vanwege zijn boeken over de Nederlandse geschiedenis, zoals "Patriots and Liberators", doet het stelselmatig fout. In zijn "Rembrandt's Eyes" (een overigens prachtig gedrukt boek) wordt de Index verpest, omdat hij een hele reeks "van der"s opvoert onde de "V" (ook al zo'n Amerikaans misverstand) die allemaal met een kleine letter geschreven zijn. Maar wat doe je eraan? Ik ontdekte van de winter dat er een Wikipedia Manual of Style bestaat. En dat echte Wikipedianen elkaar daarmee om de oren slaan, als ze dat zo uitkomt. Ik word bijv. door iemand achtervolgt die stelselmatig mijn overtredingen van MOS:REFPUNCT bestraft. De relevante "capitalization" regel staat op dit moment in MOS:PERSONAL Dat is dus in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Als je dat opslaat, zul je zien dat de huidige formulering niet helpt tegen het genoemde euvel. Ik ben daarom een kruistocht op de talk-page van dit artikel begonnen om MOS:PERSONAL dusdanig te amenderen, dat in het vervolg Wikipedianen, die zich wat van het Manual of Style aan willen trekken (quod non) er in ieder geval op worden gewezen dat in Nederland (wellicht idiosyncratische) conventies bestaan op het gebied van de hoofdlettergeving van eigennamen. Maar dat blijkt geen eenvoudige zaak. Deze pagina blijkt nl. beheerd te worden door een kleine coterie van lieden die kennelijk emotioneel geinvesteerd zijn in de huidige formulering, en zich daarom met hand en tand verzetten tegen mijn "nieuwlichterijen". Als het aan deze lieden alleen ligt, zal er niets veranderen. Zie Amendment of guideline for capitalizing foreign personal names Gelukkig is er Hoger Beroep mogelijk. Bovenaan de genoemde Talk page is een rubriek opgenomen, waarin men onderwerpen kan aanmelden, waar onenigheid over bestaat, wat dan leidt tot een stemming in een breder Gremium. Maar daarin zal ik het ook wel verliezen, als ik niet wordt bijgestaan door andere (voormalige) Nederlanders die zich om hun taal bekommeren. Ik wil je daarom vragen of je wellicht in het Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands reclame voor deze goede zaak zou willen maken? (ikzelf heb daar nl. geen connecties). Ereunetes ( talk) 21:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHERLANGS, and don't remove the proposed deletion again. -- Cyfal ( talk) 10:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Rue Saint-Florentin, Paris, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
Maliner (
talk) 09:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC) ~
Hi Taksen! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Germaine de Staël several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Germaine de Staël, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Let us try to reach a consensus like adults.
Let us try to reach a consensus mate. Sangsangaplaz ( talk) 13:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that a page you recently edited is being discussed on its talk page Talk:Germaine de Staël#Revert. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Masato.harada ( talk) 08:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Taksen. Thank you for your work on Accusateur public. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 ( talk) 15:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Taksen, you introduced a euphemism for death into the article on the Chevalier de Saint-Georges. According to the Manual of Style this is explicitly to be avoided. ("The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly"). Scarabocchio ( talk) 01:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Execution of Louis XVI into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. From
Maximilien Robespierre —Matrix(!) (
a good person!)
Citation not needed at all; thank you very much 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
A report was filed on Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents concerning you. Best regards, Encyclopédisme ( talk) 07:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC).
Thanks for creating Donald Clark Hodges.
I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Please avoid personal opinions, or writing style that resembles unattributed personal opinions, per WP:OR. Who says Hodges "studied Machiavelli extremely well"? See also WP:PUFFERY. Lastly, the "About the author" section in a book by the subject should be replaced by more independent , reliable sources per WP:NPOV. Cheers.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Animalparty}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
--Animalparty! ( talk) 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Animalparty: We don't need an expert to see Hodges read Machiavelli well. If you see his book on Deep Republicanism it will become clear within a few pages. [1] I am not an expert on South America. Let's wait if one arrives here. Taksen ( talk) 07:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
You spend a lot of time writing a reply. In between you could have changed the article on Hodges many times. Why did not you? What is so difficult about that? Taksen ( talk) 06:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC) This discussion actually belongs on the talk page. I don't understand you interest in changing me, and not the article. Taksen ( talk) 06:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Taksen,
Thanks for creating René-François Dumas! I edit here too, under the username Crystallizedcarbon and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
Please add references with in-depth coverage about the subject from independent reliable sources to the article to meet our verifiability requirements.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Crystallizedcarbon}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 07:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The article Edme-Bonaventure Courtois has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This biography of a deceased person doesn't cite any sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
TruthToBeSpoken
(talk) 09:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm TruthToBeSpoken. I noticed that you created articles without citing any sources. Please stop creating articles (especially biographies) without citing any sources. This is not allowed per WP:RS. I've proposed the following biographies of deceased persons you wrote for deletion: Edme-Bonaventure Courtois and Antoine Marie Charles Garnier. Please cite your sources next time, and consider adding reliable sources for the above article. TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
These articles were created an hour ago. These people were involved in the coup that led to the fall of Robespierre. You may never heard of them, neither did I, but that does not mean they were unimportant. I think 24 hours is a reasonable amount of time to improve them. It is hard to believe anyone else on the English Wikipedia will improve them. Taksen ( talk) 09:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia used to be a platform where people assist each other to improve an article, did the rules change? Taksen ( talk) 09:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Taksen I have the page Maximilien Robespierre on my watchlist and have been following your edits there with great interest for some time. I have not looked at all the individual changes you've made but I can see that you have improved the article considerably. I've re-read the entire article today and here and there I've found a few places where I'd like to suggest some changes. I'll do this on the article talk page and it may take some time for me to pull out specific items for comment and discussion. Before I started doing that though, I wanted to contact you directly to say how much I appreciate the improvements you've made and let you know that in raising specific points, I'm not intending to be critical of the overall very positive impact your work has achieved. All the best Mccapra ( talk) 12:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I tidied a bunch of citations in the article, just a heads up that aside from the Cite button on the visual editor, Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books is a good tool for google books citations, and Citer for others. Quuux ( talk) 01:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
"not so easy to find out who is who", haha! You bet! Sorting out all the Swedish documents about the family was a nightmare... Thanks for adding some facts about the branch of the family not so well known up here. Just be sure to add refs as to where you have found the facts, please. cart -Talk 15:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Today I concentrated on the text. I cannot get familiar with all the names and deliver at the same time proper refs, sorry. I am happy I found out more about the Grill members in Amsterdam. To me the story looks almost complete. Taksen ( talk) 03:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Johannes Grill who cooperated with his brother Anthoni (1705-1783) seems to be the biggest problem, it seems he never married and perhaps moved to Stockholm in 1773 with his relatives? Taksen ( talk) 10:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Could you please specify which Louis De Geer you are writing about. The link now goes to a disambiguation page. And since there is quite a lot of info ín the sections, could you please add where the sister stayed behind, just to make it easier for the readers. Is this correct: "Their sister Helena Catharina (1739-1804) stayed behind in Amsterdam." Thanks, cart -Talk 21:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Just a small reminder: Blogs are not admissible as sources on English Wikipedia, so the refs you have added from such may be removed. You should also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, your use of words such as "lots of" or "huge" is not good encyclopedic language. You have once again changed the section with the "During the Thirty Years' War, the protestant city was occupied by a Bavarian army but recaptured by the Swedish army in April 1632." Now there is no explanation to why this is mentioned there. You have to write how this event is linked to the people in the article. Readers will not automatically make the connections you make in your head. cart -Talk 09:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
When you add material to Claes Grill or Adolf Ulric Grill, please do it at their articles. Their section at the Grill family is only a short summery and should not contain any detailed material. Thanks, -- cart -Talk 09:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I see you are a major editor of Gabriël Metsu, so I’m hoping you may be able to answer a question for me, I’m not an art historian, but do understand there is sometimes a double entendre or sub-plot to Golden Age genre art. If so, can you tell me what is happening in Metsu’s “ Man visiting a lady washing her hands? Is the hand washing symbolising the woman’s purity, or is the woman hoaxing the man with the maid’s complicity or am I wrong completely? I would greatly value your opinion. Kind regards Giano (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Taksen, I made a change to what you wrote about the Zwaanendael Colony. There were actually two survivors of the massacre in 1632, two boys who were captured by the indians and later transferred north, ultimately to be servants of Jesuit missionaries. I left a citation to the publication, but I can also send you an except from the book if you like. Cheers and happy new year! Bellis103 ( talk) 20:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Bellis103
Re: "not many people read Polish": it doesn't matter (much). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
In
your edit of 05:47, 24 February 2020 of
Maximilien Robespierre, you commented out <ref name="The Jacobin Clubs">{{cite book|last=Kennedy|first=Michael|title=The Jacobin Clubs in the French Revolution, 1793-1795|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t1yYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17|date=2000-05-01|publisher=Berghahn Books|isbn=978-1-78920-576-3|page=17}}</ref>
, so the other use of <ref name="The Jacobin Clubs" />
did not work. I have fixed it. —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 21:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
for that accidental rollback on the Robespierre entry. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 14:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your additions to this article! I'm not sure I have time to use it right now, but you might be interested to know that a great source on him and Dutch printing history was recently made available for free: Charles Enschede's Type Foundries In The Netherlands which was recently digitised by the Noord-Hollands Archief.
It's great to see these additions, but would it be OK if you cited sources for additions you make? They sound right to me, but the Dutch-language Wikipedia article has no line-by-line sourcing (although its sources look legit to me) it's hard to trust it. Blythwood ( talk) 16:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions! (Bit depressing to see he was having financial problems in the 1660s, I had the impression he was doing OK by then...) in Once again, it's great that you're adding this information but I am begging you to give clear explanations about where this information is coming from: "from city archive" in the edit summary is not going to help future scholars reading this Wikipedia article who want to build on your knowledge in ten or twenty years time-it needs to be cited to a specific document and (if it's something obscure and hard to access) a quote from the document is a good move. In my additions to the Joan Michaël Fleischman article I cited contemporary newspapers and transcribed out what they were saying: it would be really great to have such documentation here. Blythwood ( talk) 03:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Your edit to Bank of Amsterdam has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
PD-notice}}
after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Sorry for the mistake. —
Diannaa (
talk) 20:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Greetings
It seems contributed to women's rights related articles.
Please do visit Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları an article about commoner women's slavery in Ottoman times. I have been looking for more contribution and expansion to Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları from editors who have been contributing to women's rights related articles. Kindly do help expand the article Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları, if you find yourself interested.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 16:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Your edit to Asiento de Negros has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This edit was made last year in June, but I am warning you because you have made repeated copyright violations in the past. I have removed the violation but your copying is unacceptable. Sennecaster ( What now?) 05:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/37837/9789004416451_webready_content_text.pdf, which is not released under a compatible license. CC-BY-NC 4.0 license is not a compatible license. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
When I checked that particular article on copyright, I found this:
https://brill.com/view/book/9789004416451/front-4.xml
This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC 4.0 license, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. Further information and the complete license text can be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Taksen ( talk) 00:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
After contacting the publisher I understand the limitations do not have to do with them. The policy to limit the use of the article is introduced by Wikipedia, or some bureaucrats. Taksen ( talk) 11:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Your edit to Jacques Necker has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. — Diannaa ( talk) 14:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I have found additional copyright material that I had to remove from the same article. You added some of it quite a while ago. Please don't do this anymore. Everything you add to Wikipedia has to be written in your own words. Short quotations are allowed, but only when there's no alternative – you must write your own prose. Many copyright violations are being automatically detected by a bot. Be aware – stop copying now, or you risk a block.— Diannaa ( talk) 14:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like there's still more to do, but I have to go to work now. I will finish later.— Diannaa ( talk) 14:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Ben, I seem to be the main author of the above mentioned article. I am a little surprised because the article has already plenty of references and you want even more. The amount of page number you want to see is overwhelming. It looks as if you want everything presented on a tea tray, but if the article on line has no page numbers it was impossible to add them. (Unfortunately someone in the past also deleted or did not add page the numbers when he or she improved the references. I have no idea who it was.) I hope you are a French speaking Canadian. If you open the links you get an idea how difficult and confusing this topic is. I am not interested in going back to the article to improve it. It was just an attempt to understand what happened, then I moved to Robespierre, also not easy but more rewarding. Some of your questions might be answered there. Good luck. Taksen ( talk) 20:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
It was Bumbubookworm. He is an expert on swimmers and Vietnam. I am sorry, even the history of the article was difficult to understand. Taksen ( talk) 13:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Only now I understand what happened. The article was used on the main page. In the old days the moderators would tell or warn you, but they skipped that. As a contributor to the article I am shocked each time. Did it help to ask in such a short time before the publication for more details? I would say no. Taksen ( talk) 14:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the start of your comment at Talk:Frederick the Great, which is a blatant personal attack. I thought your comment on the other editor's gender was particularly inappropriate. I find it hard to believe that in 15 years and 20k edits you've never read WP:NPA, but I would suggest re-reading it now, apologizing on the editor's talk page, and re-factoring your comments to focus entirely on the content in the article and not on the contributor. Even if you don't think much of their work, we can only make the encyclopedia better by working together. Wham2001 ( talk) 07:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
..I find your accusation that wtfiv is female to be hilarious, and juvenile. FYI HE is a 61 year old male, a PhD,and teaches psychology in college, is published, a peer reviewer in his field. What are your credentials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.43.122 ( talk) 01:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
I fail to see how the War and Peace characters category is relevant in light of that. In any case, the bigger issue is that you should not revert without giving a reason. That is a failure in communication and otherwise impolite as it implies you don't even want to start discussing it. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Beautiful lay out but I am not interested in discussing with you. You obviously never read the parts of the book, did not check my addition. Otherwise you would have known better. Taksen ( talk) 05:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
Please slow down! Many of your copy edits are valuable, but others are introducing errors - for example, confusing "effect" and "affect", replacing valid subjunctive forms with incorrect constructions ("that he be" and "that she marry" are correct in context, not "that he is" and "that she marries"). Many others consist of replacing valid British spellings ("afterwards", "travelled", "cancelled") with American ones in a haphazard way, deleting grammatical articles that change the sense of a phrase, or changing original archaic forms in quoted material. Please read carefully, and try to understand the meaning of a phrase before changing it.
Best wishes,
Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 11:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
You owe Jean-de-Nivelle some gratitude for correcting some serious problems you created there. It can be very tedious work to find them in a mass edit like the one you did on Christina. Besides the British spelling, other examples were: Line 55 the chancellor (position) or Chancellor Axel ... (title); Line 95 you had the verb "were" twice in the sentence; Line 118 "reduced" made no sense, "educed" was correct; Line 157 no such English word as "canon". I agree that you should be more careful in all the otherwise good work you do. Why correct the English of other editors at all? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 02:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Line 216 "beings" is not connect there.
Hello Serge, do you mean connected? (See above, the last sentence.) Please don't tell me what to do, this is not a church, although I sometimes think Wikipedia is like a religion, one can be blocked "for eternity". Besides, it wasn't a mass edit, it only took five minutes, not more. I think most Americans like to exaggerate.
I am here for more than 15 years. De Nivelle arrived here a year ago and made two changes a day on average. Besides he has no profile, which did not attract me. To be more clear I don't trust people without a profile. But, he turned out to be more serious than I expected and checked all the changes I (or Grammarly) proposed. He even checked Jan Jacobsz. Hinlopen an article where almost nobody goes, which I started 15 years ago. I am sure an article needs every now and then a little dynamite to attract new readers and reactions. If you go there too you can notice yourself most of the changes had nothing to do with my previous changes. Anyhow his contribution to spelling and grammar is useful.
As I mentioned above, the program puts the commas in the right place, all the other changes should be checked by a native speaker and with linguistic knowledge which he has to my surprise. I needed a native speaker to check to value of the changes proposed by Grammarly. It is better to use the program only for the commas. But there are also a few typical mistakes made by Dutch people writing English for which it can be useful. I would not be surprised Grammarly will check the changes and corrections and ask me for my opinion within a couple of days. A few years ago, to my surprise, I was one of their top editors.
Another problem with the internet is the laziness of the reader. It is hard to believe most readers succeed to arrive at the end of the article. They decide to leave within a few seconds and seem to prefer to watch videos and pictures. This is a serious problem that will be hard to solve. Taksen ( talk) 06:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I guess we human beings spent ten percent of our time on repairing mistakes. Also computer programs have mistakes, Wikipedia is not a exception. It seems we learn most from our mistakes. For years I am producing articles; it is nice to look at an article in a rather different way. The pandemic forces us to slow down, and look closer at what we did. We need no more headmasters; there are already enough of them. The article on the Insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793 really improved, thanks to the program and Jean, not to you. Goodnight. Taksen ( talk) 02:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to template a regular, but it appears that you tried to give Thomas Hope (banker, born 1769) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Thomas Hope (1769–1831). This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, please move articles using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. It can also move the talk pages to keep them consistent. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else.
In this case, the article title had been decided per discussion at Talk:Thomas Hope (banker, born 1704)#Requested move 3 November 2018, so any further moves would be best done after another RM.
If there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thanks, Certes ( talk) 18:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to British credit crisis of 1772-1773 has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I don’t understand this sentence you wrote: “After 1670 when the Spanish Empire declined substantially they outsourced part of the slave trade to the Dutch (1685-1687), the Portuguese, the French (1698-1713) and the English (1713-1750), also providing Dutch, British and French America from the Caribbean islands were there organized depots.” The underlined part is impossible for me to understand. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I see in a recent addition to February Revolution you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add your personal opinions to articles as you did at Christina of Sweden recently. Article content is not supposed to reflect our personal opinions as given in edit summaries but is to be cited to reliable sources and/or be the product of consensus on talk pages. One would expect you to know that and act accordingly. I am quite surprised at these latest actions of yours. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
It is your opinion that Queen Maria Eleonora of Sweden was "considered insane". I am asking you again not to add your personal opinions to Wikipedia articles without citing reliable references or achieving consensus on article talk pages for whatever you wish to add. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 03:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
According to Bourdon, Méda then hit Couthon's adjutant in his leg.[555][556][557][558][559] Couthon was found lying at the bottom of a staircase in a corner, having fallen from the back of his gendarme. The unperturbed Saint-Just gave himself up without a word. According to Méda, Hanriot tried to escape by a concealed staircase to the third floor and his apartment.[560] Most sources say that Hanriot was thrown out of a window by Coffinhal after being accused of the disaster. (According to Ernest Hamel, it is one of the many legends spread by Barère.[561]) Whatever the case, Hanriot landed in a small courtyard on a heap of glass.[518] He had strength enough to crawl into a drain where he was found twelve hours later and taken to the Conciergerie.[518] Coffinhal, who had successfully escaped, was arrested seven days later, totally exhausted.
Once again here you have corrupted the cited source by changing the article text to include your personal unsourced opinion. This is another warning to stop doing things like that. They do serious damage to this project. Do not add any personal opinions of yours to any article unless they are supported by reliable sources and do not change any article text so that that text no longer coincides with a source already cited for it. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to Maximilien Robespierre has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi thanks for creating this article. When we translate or borrow from other language wikis it’s a requirement to acknowledge the source. The best way to do this is to include it in your edit summary (e.g. “translated from fr.wiki”) and there’s also a translation template you can add to the talk page. I’ve added it for you. All the best Mccapra ( talk) 09:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there!
I noticed you undid most of what I removed on the Robespierre article.
I feel most of the things there are not needed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should have an encyclopedic style. For example, "On Sunday 27 July, the weather was stormy." Is an unneeded detail, and reads like it's trying to create an atmosphere, like a novel.
"An encyclopedic style with a formal tone is important: straightforward, just-the-facts, instead of essay-like, argumentative, or opinionated." From Help: Editing. Currently the article is very essay like and opinionated, so I'm planning on going through the whole article soon and trying to remove unneeded stuff. Although, I admit I can over do things. If I remove anything you deem needed, please let me know! I hope you and I can create the best version of the article together. Natasha862 ( talk) 07:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Greetings Taksen:
I wanted to contact you in regards to two changes I made to some information you added to this article.
First change: the commissioning of Haydn’s Paris Symphonies.
You wrote: “In 1784 he commissioned Joseph Haydn to write six symphonies for them.” The symphonies were commissioned by Claude-François-Marie Rigoley, Comte d'Ogny. D'Ogny merely asked Bologne to write to Haydn to work out the details of the commission. My source of this information is H.C. Robbins Landon, a musicologist who is one of the leading authorities on Haydn.
In addition, your reference was Warwick Lister’s “The First Performance of Haydn’s ‘Paris’ Symphonies,” Eighteenth-Century Music 1, no. 2 (2004): 289–300. There is nothing in that essay stating Bologne commissioned the symphonies.
Second change: about the symphonie concertante form. Your statement “In 1775, he introduced the symphonie concertante…” was incorrect. There are numerous examples of works in this form from before 1775. For example, there is Johann Christian Bach’s Symphonie Concertante in G, SC 1, for two violins, cello and orchestra which was first played on or about 20 February 1772 in London.
Best regards,
Siegfried1876 Siegfried1876 ( talk) 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Ik neem aan dat je akkoord bent als ik je in het Nederlands toeschrijf? Ik heb net een revisie op Patriottentijd voor je "vervolmaakt". Maar ik wil het nu over iets heel anders hebben. Ik ben al sinds sinds februari 2008 op Wikipedia bezig (Mijn eerste edit was op Amboyna Massacre), en ik heb me sindsdien groen en geel geergerd aan de gewoonte van veel Amerikaanse Wikipedianen om Nederlandse namen met een voorvoegsel onjuist te "hoofdletteren" (capitalize). Ik gebruik altijd Antonie van Leeuwenhoek als voorbeeld, maar het gebeurt op veel grotere schaal. Het probleem zit er in dat de Voorschriften van de Nederlandse Taalunie boven de Amerikaanse pet gaan. Ze zien "van" met een kleine letter geschreven in de persoonsnaam en concluderen dan dat "dus" ook de achternaam met een kleine letter moet. Het komt in de beste kringen voor. Simon Schama, die ik overigens hoog heb vanwege zijn boeken over de Nederlandse geschiedenis, zoals "Patriots and Liberators", doet het stelselmatig fout. In zijn "Rembrandt's Eyes" (een overigens prachtig gedrukt boek) wordt de Index verpest, omdat hij een hele reeks "van der"s opvoert onde de "V" (ook al zo'n Amerikaans misverstand) die allemaal met een kleine letter geschreven zijn. Maar wat doe je eraan? Ik ontdekte van de winter dat er een Wikipedia Manual of Style bestaat. En dat echte Wikipedianen elkaar daarmee om de oren slaan, als ze dat zo uitkomt. Ik word bijv. door iemand achtervolgt die stelselmatig mijn overtredingen van MOS:REFPUNCT bestraft. De relevante "capitalization" regel staat op dit moment in MOS:PERSONAL Dat is dus in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Als je dat opslaat, zul je zien dat de huidige formulering niet helpt tegen het genoemde euvel. Ik ben daarom een kruistocht op de talk-page van dit artikel begonnen om MOS:PERSONAL dusdanig te amenderen, dat in het vervolg Wikipedianen, die zich wat van het Manual of Style aan willen trekken (quod non) er in ieder geval op worden gewezen dat in Nederland (wellicht idiosyncratische) conventies bestaan op het gebied van de hoofdlettergeving van eigennamen. Maar dat blijkt geen eenvoudige zaak. Deze pagina blijkt nl. beheerd te worden door een kleine coterie van lieden die kennelijk emotioneel geinvesteerd zijn in de huidige formulering, en zich daarom met hand en tand verzetten tegen mijn "nieuwlichterijen". Als het aan deze lieden alleen ligt, zal er niets veranderen. Zie Amendment of guideline for capitalizing foreign personal names Gelukkig is er Hoger Beroep mogelijk. Bovenaan de genoemde Talk page is een rubriek opgenomen, waarin men onderwerpen kan aanmelden, waar onenigheid over bestaat, wat dan leidt tot een stemming in een breder Gremium. Maar daarin zal ik het ook wel verliezen, als ik niet wordt bijgestaan door andere (voormalige) Nederlanders die zich om hun taal bekommeren. Ik wil je daarom vragen of je wellicht in het Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands reclame voor deze goede zaak zou willen maken? (ikzelf heb daar nl. geen connecties). Ereunetes ( talk) 21:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHERLANGS, and don't remove the proposed deletion again. -- Cyfal ( talk) 10:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Rue Saint-Florentin, Paris, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
Maliner (
talk) 09:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC) ~
Hi Taksen! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Germaine de Staël several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Germaine de Staël, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Let us try to reach a consensus like adults.
Let us try to reach a consensus mate. Sangsangaplaz ( talk) 13:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that a page you recently edited is being discussed on its talk page Talk:Germaine de Staël#Revert. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Masato.harada ( talk) 08:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Taksen. Thank you for your work on Accusateur public. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 ( talk) 15:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Taksen, you introduced a euphemism for death into the article on the Chevalier de Saint-Georges. According to the Manual of Style this is explicitly to be avoided. ("The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly"). Scarabocchio ( talk) 01:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Execution of Louis XVI into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. From
Maximilien Robespierre —Matrix(!) (
a good person!)
Citation not needed at all; thank you very much 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
A report was filed on Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents concerning you. Best regards, Encyclopédisme ( talk) 07:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC).