User talk:Taksen

A page you started (Donald Clark Hodges) has been reviewed!

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)

It doesn't matter matter if you or I think Hodges did anything well: we as Wikipedia editors cannot insert our own thoughts, interpretations, analysis, or synthesis of existing sources. This is made clear in Wikipedia:No original research. And we need not be experts in any field to write a balanced encyclopedia article (we just summarize what experts have already written). We cannot read his book, then write "he is a great writer" or interpret his work in Wikipedia's voice. Neither the blurb from his own book, nor the third-party biographical entry contains subjective, ambiguous terms like "avid", "extremely well", "a great deal", etc. So unless they can be directly attributed to other published sources, they must be removed. It is okay to state something like "Hodges was known as an authority on ____ ^[citation], receiving the ___ award^[citation] and producing over X publications^[citation]." which would be plainly verifiable, non-biased, objective information. And, as this article expands to a more complete biography, WP:NPOV means that significant criticism must be given its due weight: I admit to knowing nothing about Hodges before patrolling your article, but a moment's Googling brings up this critique. I'm not trying to detract from the subject of the article, nor criticize you personally, but just trying to give you pointers on how to write better articles. I see you've been active for quite a long time on Wikipedia, but we can all use a reminder sometimes. Let me know if you have any questions. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 06:41, 25 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)

And I just have. I came to you directly because in this case I felt the issues needed dealing with at the source. From your talk page history, I'm not the only one to raise concerns or make suggestions about your editing. I hope you keep these tips in mind for your next article. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve René-François Dumas

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)

Proposed deletion of Edme-Bonaventure Courtois

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)

January 2019

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)

Robespierre

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)

I remember you, please go ahead on the talkpage. Then we won't have an edit conflict. In the mean time I will add more information from Hampson, Bienvenu and Linton. I am afraid I added too many details, but now I like to know all about Robespierre.Taksen (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I like to think things over before I reply more specifically to your suggestions on the talk page, some are useful; others I don't like at all. If I would change the lede according to your suggestions, it would become short, easy to chew and very superficial. (We don't know how much of the article is read by the visitors, so I like to see some background information in the lede, in case they never finish till the end.) Besides the so-called "background" information tell the reader which issues are important and to keep in mind when going on. When Robespierre became active in the Commune; why the Terror started; when Robespierre had to choose between Friendship and Terror. The information on the Thermidorian reaction seems less important to than the radical decision to have your friends killed, don't you think? You wrote the detail at the end of the lede is unnecessary, i.e. the two different points of view, but it gives the reader an very good idea about the controversy around Robespierre. Is it because it is in French? Is it because you never heard of Hervé? Is it because many Wikipedians like to delete information they have never heard off? Is it because people like absolute truths and like to read Robespierre was bad? In my point of view he was, but there are many people who think he was not. So it is necessary to pay attention to both sides in order to get a balanced article. I do need more time to think it over and get adjusted, as you will understand. I will probably move some of my background information to a more appropriate place, and cut or improve some sentences. I would also a friend's opinion, which takes time. Most of all, I would like to finish the three books by Hampson, Bienvenu and Linton. They already proofed to be extremely useful. The content of the article will change, within the next days, weeks, perhaps months.Taksen (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

In the past few months I have seen a lot of information, which could be useful in the article on Hanriot, but I cannot handle Robespierre and Hanriot both at the same time. I might go a little crazy. But his role looks crucial, and not understood well. What happened to him after 2 June 1793? He was not the chief in command of the National Guard, but of the Sans-culotte armée. I tried to start an article on Boulanger, look here [2]. Mainly a translation of article on the French Wikipedia. May be you can improve it and then import it? (Or the other way around?) There is also an article on Payan missing on the English Wikipedia, or the printer Nicolas and the body-guard of Robespierre, but even the French don't have an article on him. Taksen (talk) 07:13, 1 May 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)

Grill

"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)

Thanks for adding sources to many of your edits. I'll check the language and style according to MOS plus fix the refs in a while. I do agree with editor Quuux in the post above this one, it would be great if you took some time to learn how to write proper refs. That way you can add them in the style used in the article you edit; sloppy refs look untidy in otherwise structured articles and leave extra work for other editors. I am also a bit concerned that you simply move around and change numbers on some of the Grills without leaving any explanation in the edit summary. It's all starting to look a bit like wild editing. cart-Talk 01:03, 30 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)

Well, the language and style needs some polishing. I assume your native language is Dutch and that is shining through in the some places. Dutch is actually quite similar to Swedish, so I understand much of it when my Dutch friends speak. I usually help some Duch users with texts over at Wikimedia Commons, so this is no problem for me. I'll fix it later. --cart-Talk 09:31, 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)

I have no more information about that or the rest of the family members. I fine-combed all available online archives when I wrote the article. I even discovered and sorted out some connections and persons the museum people were not even aware of. The rest of the material is in physical ledgers and journals in archives far from where I live. Sorry. --cart-Talk 10:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I have left you an answer on my talk page, but for more conversation, it is better to keep it all in the same place here. cart-Talk 11:23, 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)

Thanks for fixing those issues and adding refs. You still need to work on leaving proper edit summaries, things like "detail" and " temporarily" does not explain what you added. Please also get to work on learning about proper refs. Someone who edits at a scholarly level as you do, should not be stuck at leaving newbie refs. cart-Talk 11:52, 2 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)

Then I have to change to their articles all the time. I think here it should be about their business so one can see a development. With your proposal that does not work. You can copy it to your articles, if you like.Taksen (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC) I am still working with the book by Müller; he has a lot of information. Please wait till I have finished. Then we can decide what could be moved or left out.Taksen (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Anthoni (Sr) or (IV) is not a son of Anthoni (III), but a nephew; Anthoni (Jr) is almost unimportant. We can forget him. I prefer my solution.Taksen (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am still wondering about the profession "spooner". It was translated from the Swedish. I have to find out what it would be called in English. I will ask an expert.Taksen (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Palmstruch, the abundance of copper and the lack of silver, the issue of credit notes, explain something. I will ask an expert and expand the story later. I am quite sure it has to do with it. Taksen (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you change their main articles and not the summery, that is the way WP works, people follow links. And the articles are not "mine", I just created them for everyone to work on.

In the family tree, the numbers are not related to who is son of who, they are just designations and it gets confusing if a younger person is suddenly called "Sr". --cart-Talk 10:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The English word for "skedare" is 'gold refiner, gold parter', or in German "Goldscheider". I have added an explanation and reference. There is also the article Gold parting. --cart-Talk 11:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Gabriël Metsu

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)

I have no idea and do not like such kind of explanations. I think a good painting has a mystery which is not so easy to solve, otherwise the owner gets bored too fast.Taksen (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I expect you are correct. This discussion seems to have moved to my talk page, but I doubt we will ever have a definitive answer. Giano (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Zwaanendael Colony

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

I hardly remember what I wrote, was it ten years ago? Thanks, but for years I have different topics in my mind. Taksen (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Just for reference

Re: "not many people read Polish": it doesn't matter (much). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Maximilien Robespierre

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)

Sorry...

for that accidental rollback on the Robespierre entry. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Christoffel van Dijck

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)

Good morning Blythwood, it is really difficult to link to the city archives. They change their website regulary, and I am still confused and unexperienced in their latest update. They use permalinks nowadays, but I usually don't arrive on the right page, but on the beginning. I will add a few permalinks and you can tell if it works good for you. I had never heard of Van Dijck, until two weeks ago, and when I noticed a few days ago you were improving it, I became more interested. I have never been involved in type casters before. Don't worry or hurry.Taksen (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Taksen, thanks for the reply! I know the kind of website you mean, with search but unreliable permalinks-but it's not a problem. You can refer to document names, reference file numbers and dates, as for instance his specimen in the British national archives is at location SP 129/36. Just as long as there's something that tells people where to look for more information in the Wikipedia article itself. People can't be expected to read through the edit history. Blythwood (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Look here: [3]

Ouch, yes, I sympathise. That interface doesn't look fun. Putting in citations that just say things like "Kwijtscheldingen, archiefnummer 5013, inventarisnummer 14, Stadsarchief Amsterdam" would be enough in this situation. No need to get a permalink working, just enough that someone reading the article knows where to look.
Van Dijck is an interesting guy-there's not much documentation from his lifetime about types he made, meaning that to understand what he created people had to pore over books published by his clients and type specimens published by his successors in business. The leading living expert on him is almost certainly John A. Lane, an American antiquarian living in the Netherlands, whose work I cited extensively and on whom I recently wrote a Wikipedia page. He is a wonderful writer, who I understand has wanted to write more on Dutch printing in the seventeeth century but has had trouble getting funding to publish it. His book The Diaspora of Armenian Printing, although obviously not primarily about van Dijck, is actually a good basic up-to-date source giving a summary of his career. If you have journal access, his 2013 Quaerendo article I cite is more or less state of the art for research on Dutch printing in the end of the seventeenth century, although again not primarily focused on van Dijck himself. Blythwood (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I will check his article. He undoubtly used Van Eeghen as she was a leading archivist in Amsterdam, who published on 17th century book printers etc. (The City Archives in my point of view has a policy not to use Wikipedia, but check their website. That is why they change regularly.) I am sure, I am the first who found out the exact location at Elandstraat, and not on Elandsgracht, as the Dutch Wikipedia wants us to believe. Neither Van Eeghen found the exact location as I concentrate usually on location and check purchases. Till later.Taksen (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good-it's great to see this extra information on his life. The map in particular is so beautiful! I will think about getting it into the article, maybe we could do a crop? I would particularly avoid writing that van Dijck's fonts were or were not used to print any book unless you have an extraordinarily high-quality, up-to-date source by a writer who is a specialist on the history of printing and who is referring to a specific font size and a specific specimen suggesting that it is van Dijck's work. Briefly, as Professor James Mosley explains, such claims have often been used by historians who had less information than modern historians do and who often had a nationalist agenda. (Adding to the confusion, the 1681 specimen that was the main specimen of van Dijck's work claimed that its types "were cut by the late Christoffel van Dijck". But it's not completely true: as the writers of Type Specimen Facsimiles explain, some were cut by Claude Garamond and Robert Granjon in the previous century and are seen in earlier specimens. It's a mess!) Unfortunately with lockdown it's hard for me to do the further research that would be ideal to add more information in this area. Blythwood (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Had a chance to re-read John A. Lane's book on Armenian printing, which I cite in the article. The passage about van Dijck starts on page 70. This is his passage on van Dijck's move: "In 1663 he purchased larger premises in a courtyard north of the Elandstraat, reached by what became known as Salamander alley, named after his shop sign." Any thoughts on why you get 1664 and he gets 1663? He cites specific SAA documents for his work for the Armenian printing offices (I can give you the numbers if you like) but I'm afraid he doesn't detail his research on van Dijck's general career beyond noting that he hopes to publish more on the topic in future. He notes (p. 74) what I've heard elsewhere, that "the extent of Van Dijck's relations with the Elzeviers in Leiden has been greatly exaggerated, but he did supply some of their types by at least 1654 and may have cut the Ethiopic type they introduced in that year...by 1658 Van Dijck had virtually monopolized the cutting of quality type in the Netherlands." Blythwood (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

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)

I don't understand your removal as the text is in public domain.[4] Is there something wrong with the Libertyfund? Should I contact them and ask their permission? I think this book published in 1896 and the chapter on the Bank of Amsterdam by Richard van der Borght (1861-1926) is an important source with hardly known details as he had a personal connection with W.C. Mees, then the director of the Nederlandsche Bank.

Meanwhile I found a different website with the same book "A history of banking in all the leading nations; ..." published by the Cornell University Library.[5]. Does that help? Then I only have to change the references. It would be stupid not to inform financial historians about his knowledge and understanding. Looking forward to a acceptable solution. Taksen (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There is even an article on this book with a link to Liberty Fund: A History of Banking in All the Leading Nations. I have no idea what went wrong. Taksen (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The book is in the public domain. In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{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)

Requesting some article expansion support

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)

April 2021

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)

If you are referring to 28 January 2021, the administrator made a mistake, and excused herself. Besides I think you exaggerated a little as you added only one "PD-notice". I am not used to work with This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain., it suddenly seems to be important. I don't like the idea the context is gone in that section; is that helpful? The reader doesn't have to know what Jonathan Israel wrote? Is that honest? I am not so sure you were improving the quality.Taksen (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If you are referring to January 2019, then I have to say, the message was send within a few hours after creating the article. That looked rather stupid to me.Taksen (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Listings are not intended to imply a presumption of bad faith on the part of any contributor, as copyright laws vary widely around the world and many contributors who violate Wikipedia's copyrights policy do so inadvertently through not understanding it or the United States' laws that govern it.

Copyright problem on Maximilien Robespierre

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)

I am not so sure you were improving the quality of the article. I am not able to check what I added. If you know so well, the text should be written in own words, why don't you do it. Are you the headteacher? You are a native speaker. Is not important to assist; it looks more like revenge; you are not helping; it is a shame. You are not improving Wikipedia, but creating hate. There is more damage than good.Taksen (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

In my first edit I removed content from page 79 " After months of vehement disagreement..." ending with ...of 6,000 troops". My second edit removed content from page 55 starting with "Camille Desmoulins, Condorcet and ..." and ending with "and the National Assembly." as well as content from page 138 the entire sentence starting at "The Law of Suspects of..". From page 106-107, the whole sentence containing " at best a mix of idealism". From page 147, the whole sentence containing "without the assistance of the Jacobins". From page 133 the sentence containing "convenient strategy for political survival". Sorry but time constraints preclude me from being able to re-write the content for you (or for any other editor for that matter) because there are typically anywhere from 75 to 100 reports to assess each day and only a handful (fewer than five) people doing the work on any given day. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more.— Diannaa (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Please look here Talk:Maximilien_Robespierre#copyright

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)

CC-BY-NC 4.0 license is not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use, and our license does. There's a list of compatible licenses at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?— Diannaa (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I will contact a lawyer/Brill.com to find out what they think about this removal.Taksen (talk) 12:36, 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)

August 2021

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)

I don't understand what you are doing, some looked deleted, but it is still there. You improved because you left some refs. Still I do no think you were improving the article, which should be our goal. It all looks arbitrary.Taksen (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Improvements must take place within the limits of our copyright policy. My goal is not to improve the article's prose, but to improve its compliance with that policy.— Diannaa (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Only a handful of people understand what you are doing, not even the publishers. I will ask the author.Taksen (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll chip in here too, Talksen, to explain. You cannot cut and paste text, even as short as sentences, from other sources, into Wikipedia, unless you put quotes in. Quotes are not really wanted in Wiki, as you quoted some historians in the September Massacre article. Better to just put information in your own words, start fresh, and cite your source. I hope this helps you understand what Diannaa is getting at. cheers Ben Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)~

It is possible to delete any information without reference, but referenced is unnecessary and unacademic. It is not wrong, even if Wikipedia prefers something else. Besides she deleted information from books written in the 19th century. It looks stupid to me. That is why Wikipedia sometimes reads as a children book or a women magazine, because people have to find their own words for something that is not easy to tell.Taksen (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

A couple of points: A book from the 19th century is no longer protected by copyright, but a translation of that book generates a new copyright. The fact that writing original prose is hard is does not make it okay to copy other people's prose and paste it into Wikipedia; it's a violation of our copyright policy to do that. If you're going to edit here, you have to follow our copyright policy, whether you agree with it or not.— Diannaa (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Even the translation into English was published in 1891. Another point is that native speakers have an advantage on immigrants or non-native contributors, but that is life.Taksen (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC) We learn from copying, not only birds and plants. It is fast and easy, but sometime something goes wrong as with viruses and genes.Taksen (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

September Massacre

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)

Hi Taksen, I think you are mistaken that I wanted something from you about citations or page numbers. That was somebody else. I was following a notation about the lead being too long, which I deleted once I shortened the lead. I am primarily a style editor, so I have a good handle on how much detail to keep in leads. I appreciate people adding content, and citations– I focus on making it more readable. I will say, as to content, that the history of the French Revolution is very complex, and if you are not expert in it, I would be very careful to write an article. I actually have studied it in depth, so I know where the quicksand lies. Anyways, It wasn't me who requested anything about citations. I just trimmed and organised the lead a bit, and removed the tag. cheers! Ben Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC) (Sorry I don't know how to message people properly...)

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)

Personal attack

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)

Nice to know, but still I don't like his style, thanks for your concern.Taksen (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NONDEF

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)

It does not matter that Kutuzov is a character (however important) in the book, or what was written about him in those books. It is not a defining characteristic of Kutuzov that he appeared in the books, nor is he primarily known for appearing in those books. If you're not interested in discussing, but you keep reverting, then you're sending contradictory messages. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Please slow down!

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)

For a few days I use a program called Grammarly, as I am not a native speaker. I have to get used to their proposals, and the differences between English and American English, but it looks, they put commas in the right place.Taksen (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Taksen (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I think your commas are excellent! But might I respectfully suggest that, as a non-native speaker, Grammarly-assisted copy editing might not be the best use of your obvious talents? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:32, 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.

Reply

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 did not & cannot tell you what to do. I can only ask you not to correct the English of other users when you make serious errors in doing so. Administrators can tell you to stop doing that if they begin to take an interest in this recurring problem created by you. When you try to show us that you are always right, that challenging attitude doesn't do you any favors. We all make mistakes. We should all appreciate and adjust when they are pointed out to us in a civil manner. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

My account is fairly new, it's true, and most of my edits are minor. I'm here primarily as a reader, but I like to tidy up as I go. I am a native speaker of (British) English though, with (I think) a fair grasp of modern and archaic forms, and it seems to me that Grammarly doesn't always grasp the subtleties of more complex (and archaic) sentence structures. The result is that your Grammarly-assisted edits are introducing errors faster than I can correct them, hence my request that you slow down. If, as a reader of English, you're unable to tell that "in bound service" is correct, while "inbound service" is nonsensical (Admiralty of Amsterdam), you're not competent to judge whether the suggestions that Grammarly makes are improvements or not.

I don't mind fixing the errors your edits introduce, but I can't fix them as fast as you can make them. With respect, wouldn't it be better for both of us (and for Wikipedia) if you didn't make them in the first place? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would, and it's very hard to understand why that's being argued against. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:57, 29 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)

Thomas Hope

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)

April 2022

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)

History of slavery

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)

I don't understand it either. I have to take a better look at it. Wait.Taksen (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC) I think this article will help, Asiento de Negros.Taksen (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution

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)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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)

November 2022

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)

Someone added Aasen which I see as a very unreliable source. It is not available on internet and not used by the Swedish Wikipedia. On the Danish Wikipedia they say Christina cried for three days when her father left. This is a romanticized book. Did you add Aasen?Taksen (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Discuss the source on the talk page if you wish to discredit it. Don't add your personal opinions to article text. No I did not. Nor do I see anyone named "Aasen" named in any source citation anywhere. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:58, 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)

Your "very difficult" person sounds besides the truth. It is very clear you are not the expert and did not take care of all the poor references in the article.Taksen (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I own a historical library of over 600 volumes and 8 books on Christina. Your personal opinions, without sources or consensus, do not belong in any Wikipedia articles. Yet you continue even after these warnings to add your unsourced opinions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Queen Christina is well on the way to becoming another slagheap of bizarre miscellany much like Rasputin once was. EEng 11:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Slagheap is diplomatic. I can think of much stronger wording for all the damage being done with the insertion of this user's personal opinions here and there in Wikipedia articles. Slanting a text to h own thinking looks like h main effort. Time to deal with this I think. Looks like no amount of warning helps. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I still like to have worked on him for such a long time. My work on him seems appreciated. I started many articles on Russian politicians from that era. Did you look at Maximilien de Robespierre too? Taksen (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

An unreadable wall of text. Random example of junk having nothing to do with Robespierre:

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.

EEng 17:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I knew that already.Taksen (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

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)

January 2023

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)

Hervé Leuwers

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)

Robespierre article.

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)

You're right, I try to create some atmosphere and bring events to life. I think the article is quite factional but at some time I was advised to add some more "air" in (my) articles. There is interest on what the weather was like in July 1794, and especially on 9 Thermidor and if it ever rained or thundered during the night, so people left the square. I do not like when people change the content to a more informal style of what was actually said or written for example when and how he defended the 73 Girondists. Sometimes I cannot forcee what people will question, but your questioning helped and I added more references. As a Dutchman I cannot understand the difference between insurrectional, insurrectionist or insurrectionary. This could have been discussed on the talk page. It is clear Robespierre is not an easy topic. He kept me busy for many years looking for an answer on his idealism. I am attached to the topic, but I will improve, revert or discuss it with you. Kind regards Taksen (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I forgot to mention; you are allowed to delete unreferenced but cannot delete referenced information without discussion.Taksen (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Haha, I know how tempting stuff like that can be! History is so interesting, and thematic coincidences make it seem more like a play sometimes.

But Wikipedia is still only an encyclopedia, we want to portray the dried bone facts. Ideally, in as little words as possible. Most people won't read the whole article, so it's important not to bog it down with unneeded material.

And I completely understand being attached to a topic! That's why we're all editing. I'm certainly guilty of getting attached to articles. Of course, attachments lead to bias, so it's important to try and mitigate them.

I go by the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Of course, being bold will most likely cause me to remove things best kept.

Also, I don't believe it's a hard and fast rule that one cannot remove referenced information without discussion. Common sense prevails depending on the importance of the removal in the article, so I will not start a discussion on everything I remove. This goes back to being bold, I will certainly overdo it at least once. Please use your best judgement, and I will post any further discussion on the talk page. Natasha862 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Saw your other edits!

I think I agree with you actually about "hesitated" not being the correct wording. I compared the two versions and the other seems better.

Regarding the reference, that was a total accident, sorry! I use the visual editor, and maybe its just my computer, but it's very difficult to remove a reference for some reason. I have to do a lot of fiddling with keys. But that's on me, 100%. I'll try to me much more diligent about that.

About the edit "On 10 Thermidor (a day of rest and festivity)" I feel like this is also an atmosphere thing, and doesn't belong in the article. Interesting coincidence but unneeded.

Thank you for your edits! Natasha862 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Chevalier de Saint-Georges article

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)

I am not a specialist on classical music, but on baroque music. I appreciate your changes. Some details were already in the article. It is not completely my fault. Taksen (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Nederlandse eigennamen op de Engelse Wikipedia en MOS:PERSONAL

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)

Hoi, ik heb niet zo veel zin in een kruistocht tegen een van de tienduizend regels. (Vanzelfsprekend ken ik ze ook niet allemaal.) Het ligt vaak aan de uitgevers. Een Amerikaanse vriend nam Marjolein 't Hart op in zijn index onder de T! Dat was volgens de regels van Oxford University Press. Daar heb ik wel tegen geprotesteerd. Ze hoort volgens Nederlandse maatstaven onder de H. (Ik neem aan dat het goed gekomen is, maar het boek ligt nu bij de drukker.) Nederlanders gaan naar het café, Belgen op café; Friezen gaan op bed, Nederlanders naar bed. Je kan moeilijk beweren dat de Belgen en Friezen het fout doen. Voorzetsels zijn en blijven lastig en het gebruik is variabel en inconsequent. Daar is niet veel aan te doen.Taksen (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Rasputitsa

Please see WP:OTHERLANGS, and don't remove the proposed deletion again. --Cyfal (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It is quite clear his suggestion to merge has a history and he did not succeed a year ago. The procedure is wrong, confusing and unreliable. Taksen (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Rue Saint-Florentin, Paris moved to draftspace

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) ~

You don't have a user page, not very reliable.Taksen (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit War

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)

December 2023

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)

The article is not on my watchlist anymore. I am not so interested in participating. For many years I did what I could to improve the article. Regards.Taksen (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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)

Death and euphemisms

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)

February 2024

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)

I moved text from the article on Robespierre which I added there through the years. Now someone is deleting a lot of (referenced) information. I try to safe all these precious details, but did not know I have to use this template. It looks complicated to me. Taksen (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter the Great, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermitage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI report

A report was filed on Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents concerning you. Best regards, Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC).