Jump to content

User talk:Bart Terpstra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Bart Terpstra!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips
  • Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
  • It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
  • If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
  • Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
  • When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
  • If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
  • Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Debate Policy, Not Politics

[edit]

Hey Bart, welcome to Wikipedia!

A small piece of friendly advice as you're getting started: try to avoid debates about social and political issues on talk pages. Comments like this one may lead you into discussions that are heated, lengthy, and unconstructive — and they also may make other uninvolved editors hesitant to jump in and take your side.

I know that it can be particularly frustrating when other editors try to push a hateful political or social agenda on an article, or even a talk page. But invariably, these editors will have to violate about a dozen Wikipedia policies (NPOV, DUE, BALANCE, BLP, NOR, SYNTH, etc.) to twist the article into fitting in with their worldview. It's often better to keep calm and appeal to these policies rather than to argue about the underlying values. You're unlikely to change the mind of an editor who believes that people of a certain social status simply deserve to die... but you're very likely to convince the room that the edits in question violate a whole slew of policies that are aimed at promoting neutrality and objectivity — because they do.

Just my two cents. I think you're a good editor and will be a valuable part of the community. Hope to see you around some more! Combefere ★ Talk 17:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about how to best reply to this.
It is hard to say where neutrality ends and politics begins. I personally feel like there is no difference in kind, just a difference in amount.
The linked comment was more to establish that listing an arrest record and it's details it itself a POV push to the point of being considered completely off-topic by a different major POV.
I disagree with your attitude that editors that want to add a POV i find personally repulsive will have to twist policy, the american overton window contains plenty material like that.
But I have also resolved myself to talk and edit like a Wikipedian on Wikipedia, not like myself.
Wikipedianism works best when you don't argue as if you care about the objects, but care about the meta-level of these objects, which is to say, POV balancing, verifiability, centrism, i am aware.
Thank you for your comment, I hope you have a nice day. Bart Terpstra (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry in advance for the huge post. I really hope it's not too much of a bother; I'm trying to get something I feel is important across effectively. I'm just a random stranger passing by—I saw some of the conversations you've been involved in and wanted to share this.
I think this was maybe not the best advice for you ultimately. It's not bad advice generally, but I'm a little worried you got the wrong impression from it, and that it's going to get you in trouble eventually, which would be sad. You obviously have a lot of passion and energy, and an understanding of bias and subjectivity that in some ways is hard to come by. These could be great assets to you here if you approach things in a bit of a different way.
In truth, for the kind of debates you seem to be in, I would say that appealing to policy is unlikely to convince people of much. In a heated content debate, policy can become a very fluid and messy thing to all parties. There's enough policy, and enough ways to interpret the policy, that you can find some kind of ground to justify almost anything you want. But, the other people can do this just as well, so all that will happen is you'll just argue and argue until one side gets exhausted or blocked.
In order to actually convince people in a dispute, I recommend being laser-focused on sources. Sources are everything, because they offer something no one can argue about: the bare content of the source. They can argue about the reliability of the source, the relevance of the source, and to what extent the source supports a given position, but everyone will be on the same page about the source's contents. When basically everything else in a debate here is so fluid and relative, having something solid to grasp onto is priceless.
What's more, questions of reliability, relevance, and support are usually easy to answer. People may disagree about them, but these are disagreements that can often be settled quickly, because there's not really that much to argue about. It's much narrower terrain that arguing over the meaning of a loaded political term or a country's cultural disposition or something like that, and that's great, because we want to get back to working on the encyclopedia. The sooner we can resolve the dispute, the better.
Of course, if consensus is against you on any of those three points, and it's fairly clear you won't be able to say anything that will change the other people's mind, that's the time to go find sources they will accept, or to pack it in. I get the feeling that you may not be a fan of the popular sensibilities around here about sources, which tend to favor things like large mainstream newspapers or academic texts from famous universities or that sort of thing. Obviously, those kinds of sources have their own biases, like any sources; I often think of Wikipedia as a giant project to summarize everything that's ever been printed in those kinds of outlets, more or less, for better or for worse, whatever their good or bad traits.
There are a lot of important ideas that get left out by that approach. Most of the text produced in human history wouldn't pass muster as a reliable source with most editors here. We just have to draw the line somewhere so that we have a way to call an article roughly finished, even if the line we draw seems kind of arbitrary or problematic. It's always going to seem that way to someone, whatever line we draw.
If the culture around sources here is deeply unappealing to you, you may ultimately decide that you're not interested in helping, and I understand that if so. But, I think there's something desirable in summarizing all the mainstream newspapers and academic texts and so on: it produces an interesting text corpus. It's fun to read, and it satisfies your curiousity about what sorts of things have been printed in those kinds of sources on a given topic. I think a lot of people who don't edit Wikipedia take it a little too far, as basically an arbiter of truth in the world or something, but really it's just a big summary of a certain kind of text, text that many people would not consider a good source for truth. But, if you don't worry too much about ultimate truth and instead just ask yourself, "Hmmm, I wonder what the Wikipedia-style 'reliable sources' have to say?", I think it can be really enjoyable to work on. Mesocarp (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe Wikipedia is an arbiter of a truth. It has become a major POV in and of itself.
And i don't dislike mainstream sources, it's more that I dislike self-contradiction and smuggling bias into facts, e.g. what is not being said, what are your assumptions (see: structuralism, post-structuralism).
And I do think the "All logical inference is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH" argument is nonsense. Several times I've had people reject sources because the source talk about the properties of all members of a set rather than the object of a set. Which is an easy way to keep out talk about patterns and context, editors make these kind of conclusions all the time.
While i appreciate your comment, i don't have a well written answer in me any time soon, I might write you something later. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess, the idea that it has its own POV is basically what I was trying to say at the end there. By "arbiter of truth in the world" I meant like, a genuinely reliable, "metereological" arbiter of truth, something everyone can actually look to as a good yardstick for what's true. I don't think anything could really be that, not for everyone in the world. That's why I said "it's just a big summary of a certain kind of text"—if you look at it that way, I think it's easier to get things done. People may treat it as an arbiter of truth, but I think that just breeds conflict.
The reason people don't like inferring things from the sources, bringing out the underlying assumptions, generalizing, adding context, etc., is because all they really want to do is summarize, as plainly as everyone can agree on. Two people can look at the same source and see a deeply contrasting set of assumptions and structures underlying it, so once you start asking how to incorporate those insights into an article, the probability of everyone agreeing goes way down. If you just say, "We're going to proceed directly from what the source literally says and keep the contextualizing to a minimum," it's easier for everyone to move forward from there, because, like I said, the actual content of the source is beyond debate. In some ways, people's desire to avoid original research/synthesis is just a pragmatic effort to minimize argument.
This makes Wikipedia not very critical, like in the Marxist or critical theory sense or whatever. In some ways, I think, if you're the sort of person who's adept at writing that kind of critique, it can be easier here to focus on topic areas you're not as inclined to approach that way (knitting? pancakes? :P). Otherwise you'll regularly find yourself inserting text into an article from sources you personally want to critique, and that can be emotionally trying.
Anyway, it's fine if you don't have much to say now and want to respond in full later, I'll still be here. Mesocarp (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase someone more famous: "If humans don't have such a source of truth available, humans will create such a source of truth".
Also, it is literally impossible to not have context, you would be unable to understand anything, instead, context is carefully cultivated to be centristic. This could be made explicit.
But you make good points i can't address immediately.
And yes, you deserve a full, well written answer, unlike these two. Bart Terpstra (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. I just want to say one quick addendum since I know you're planning a more detailed answer for later—don't feel obligated to respond to this in detail, it's just for illustration. I thought it might be helpful to give a concrete example of what I mean by "keeping contextualizing to a minimum," since you're certainly right that there is always context and I can understand how you might characterize it as centrist (although I don't think that's the intent—it's more a residue of the way sources get selected and handled). Perhaps from your angle it would make more sense to describe the articles as "passively contextualized," once sources have been settled on.
The article on Alfredo Stroessner refers to his regime as "harshly oppressive" and "authoritarian." This is based on sources with titles like State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South and "General Alfredo Stroessner: Dictator who mastered the fixing of elections and made Paraguay a smugglers' paradise", which use exactly that kind of language to a T—the latter article uses the phrases "authoritarian" and "brutally oppressed," for instance.
You could say this has a clear anti-Stroessner slant—judging by recent events in Paraguay I get the impression there are plenty of people there who would dispute this characterisation, considering that the new president-elect Peña has described Stroessner's regime as a time of "stability" with a mere "deficit in human rights." But, the article takes the line it does because the State Terrorism and Neoliberalism book is published by Routledge and written by an international relations PhD from the University of Bristol, the "Dictator who mastered the fixing of elections" article is an obituary from The Guardian which is widely seen as a trustworthy newspaper here, and so on. The article is just parroting—plainly, "dumbly" imitating—the kind of language those sources use, the typical Anglophone-intelligentsia-and-their-comrades "reliable sources" of Wikipedia, and letting the chips fall where they may, with no effort to account for the bias or baggage that might come with that kind of source pool. The only reason it doesn't characterize Stroessner's regime as a "time of stability, despite a deficit in human rights" is because few editors here would call Peña a reliable source, as with any politician—otherwise that phrasing would be fair game.
People are often narrowly inflexible about this. I recently mediated a dispute between two editors over whether it was okay to describe a filmmaker covered in a newspaper article as "independent" in wikivoice. He described himself that way on his website and the newspaper portrayed him that way implicitly, but the newspaper, the "reliable source," didn't use that exact word, so one editor felt it was inappropriate to use in the article. Like so many customs here, keeping the debates that close to the sources helps to minimize fighting, even if it might seem unsophisticated. Mesocarp (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to note, I don't mean to convey any sympathy for Peña's position there, let alone Stroessner. Reading over this I'm a little worried it might come off otherwise. I'm only trying to illustrate how mechanical the process is—like, even if many editors thought well of Stroessner, I would still expect his article to end up with a similar tone, because of how sources are picked. Anyway, I'll stop pestering you with comments. :P) Mesocarp (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update on how it's going so far: I have been told the opposite at least 5 times on nlwiki, which is to say, debate politics, not policy. Policy is ill-defined and we like it this way.
When in doubt, do not attempt to improve an article, because someone might think it is equally good flows from the linked guideline. Bart Terpstra (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:bludgeon and WP:DROPIT. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them. Users that hold the exact same position can be treated as being one user according to Wikipedia policy. Bart Terpstra (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Opponent (June 16)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. We cannot accept articles that are little more than definitions of words or abbreviations as entries. A good article should begin with a good definition, but expand on the subject. You might try creating a definition for this instead at Wiktionary, which is a dictionary. Please only do so if it meets that sister project's criteria for inclusion. These require among others, attestation for the word or phrase, as verified through clear widespread use, or its use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Onderduiken (June 25)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
S0091 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Bart Terpstra! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Heemeyer

[edit]

First off, loving that work you're doing to the article. I did revert one of your edits because it might cause an issue with MOS:TERRORIST. In the spirit of full disclosure, I agree with you that that guy was a terrorist and all-around asshole, but it tends to turn heads to use even well-deserved labels that aren't widely, strongly supported by RS. I took a look around the sources used in the article and didn't find much to support the usage of the word "terrorist," and a cursory google search for "Marvin Heemeyer" "terrorist" didn't bring up much in the way of RS giving a strong view one way or the other. PriusGod (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with your judgement and the norm is in place for a good reason at well.
I had a look at Timothy Mcveigh before making the change, and I noticed the categorization is also trying to be objective: "convicted of terrorism", "murdered people", rather than "domestic terrorist" by itself.
Anyway, I hope to lift it to B quality, it's still missing a bunch of details.
Like, the offer/counteroffer stuff or the fact they purchased more land besides his plot.
or the illegal sewer line he (allegedly?) tried to connect to his neighbours line rather than the public line. Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like in your recent edit, you accidentally reverted me. No worries, just wanted to point it out instead of putting it back myself, since it might come across as pushy for me to have done it.
I'm on site at work right now, but once I get back to the office I might help you out in doing some digging for sources on that stuff. PriusGod (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should note that reverting my edit somehow didn't change the short description???
I changed it just now.
Might be a bug. Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been that my edit hit the server after you started your next one, but before you submitted it, which can happen, and it didn't raise an edit conflict because we weren't working on the same lines. PriusGod (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Credit card. 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. Largoplazo (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not engaged in an edit war. I have no idea what you are talking about. Bart Terpstra (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just happen to have made edits similar to these two pairs of edits, each of which I reverted only hours ago? [1][2] That's called edit warring. And see WP:BRD. Largoplazo (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:CITETRUTH, Wikipedia:ROWN, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Fourth Rutte cabinet

[edit]

On 13 July 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Fourth Rutte cabinet, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: TrashFuture (July 24)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TipsyElephant was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Most of the sources are either trivial mentions of the podcast or they are not reliable or not independent. The best sources are from The Guardian and Esquire, but I'd like to see at least one more source with a more in depth review of the show. The Morning Star piece is pretty good, but the source's reliability has been questioned at RSN/RSP. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
TipsyElephant (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

[edit]
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communication GA review

[edit]

Hello Bart Terpstra, I saw that it has been a while since you worked on your GA review of the article Communication. I don't want to push you but it would be good to hear what your plans are. If you are stuck somewhere, you can raise the issue at WT:GAN to get feedback from other GA reviewers. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Desi Polanen has been accepted

[edit]
Desi Polanen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Municipal monument in the Netherlands has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Municipal monument in the Netherlands. Thanks! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Municipal monument in the Netherlands has been accepted

[edit]
Municipal monument in the Netherlands, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crank Magnetism (November 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GraziePrego was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Tone issues. Posing rhetorical questions for the reader is an essay technique, and doesn't belong on wikipedia. The Simpsons quote can also go.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
GraziePrego (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Opponent

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Bart Terpstra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Opponent, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:De Socialisten (Dutch Political Party-in-founding)

[edit]

Hello, Bart Terpstra. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "De Socialisten".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Opponent

[edit]

Hello, Bart Terpstra. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Opponent".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Onderduiken

[edit]

Hello, Bart Terpstra. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Onderduiken".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Bell stroke

[edit]

Hello, Bart Terpstra. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bell stroke".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 02:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:TrashFuture

[edit]

Hello, Bart Terpstra. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "TrashFuture".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 03:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

[edit]
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Crank Magnetism

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Bart Terpstra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Crank Magnetism, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Crank Magnetism

[edit]

Hello, Bart Terpstra. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Crank Magnetism".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bart_Terpstra&oldid=1262729549"