User talk:Zingvin

Zingvin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Zingvin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Edsger W. Dijkstra copyright problem

Hello Zingvin. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. Wikipedia has a really strict non-free content policy. For this reason, we don't normally include quotations from our sources in our citations. They are unnecessary and a violation of our non-free content policy, an official Wikipedia policy with legal implications. Please don't restore these quotations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you for the second time: Please stop adding huge quotations from your sources inside your quotations. It's unnecessary, and violates our non-free content policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

I've modified the first Dobell ref, in the infobox. For future reference, see Template:Cite book#Authors: "Do not wikilink—use author-link instead"--Thnidu (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Abel Tasman into Dutch East India Company. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see by your edit to Stockbroker you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Copying from one article another without providing the required attribution is a copyright violation. Please begin fulfilling this mandatory legal requirement, or you risk being blocked from editing. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and subcategories

Hi,

I notice you've been adding some articles to both a category and a subcategory that sits within it. For example - [1][2][3][4]. This isn't the way we normally use categories - if something belongs in a subcategory it usually goes only there and not further up the category tree. There's more detail on this at this editing guideline. It would be great if you could stop adding these category/subcategory pairs to articles, as the duplication reduces the effectiveness of category trees by including articles that could be more precisely located in subcategories only. Happy to discuss if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-fiction works about Baruch Spinoza has been nominated for discussion

Category:Non-fiction works about Baruch Spinoza, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please refrain from making accusations or derogatory comments as you did here. It is considered uncivil. Thank you Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Financial history of the Dutch East India Company has been nominated for discussion

Category:Financial history of the Dutch East India Company, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economic bubble

The Dutch didn't invent economic bubbles or the term bubble, as the introduction section of Economic bubble about the origin of the term explains. But even if the Dutch would have invented it, it would still not be a defining characterization of the article (see WP:CATDEF). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit comments

Hi, I noticed that you made some edits without recording in edit comments what they were about. It would be greatly appreciated if you could briefly indicate what you have done to assist other editors in their work. With many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural depictions of people associated with the Dutch East India Company has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cultural depictions of people associated with the Dutch East India Company, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit comments NUMBER TWO

you have over the last couple of days completed over 10 edits to History of timekeeping without one edit summary. When did you arrive at the point of deciding that other editors can waste their time trying to discover whether all the changes are real, worthy and an improvement to the Featured Article. Please help other editors create a better wikipediaa. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Categories were removed from these articles because they are about Finance, they're not about Dutch history. We categorize by defining characteristics only, see WP:CATDEF. Dutch history appears in these articles merely in passing, at best, or not at all, at worst. Putting Johan Palmstruch in a Dutch history category is especially weird because this guy belongs to Swedish history. Also pinging @Patrug:. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economic history of Amsterdam has been nominated for discussion

Category:Economic history of Amsterdam, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think anybody appreciated your personal questions in that discussion. Please stay focussed on the topic being discussed – in that case, whether the category was helpful to navigation – and avoid the appearance of personal attacks. – Fayenatic London 07:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category names

Category names for people should use WP:COMMONNAME just like any other article, and should usually just be the exact same name as the main article for the person. See WP:CATNAME. So Category:Qianlong Huangdi should be Category:Qianlong Emperor, and Category:Tang Taizong should be Category:Emperor Taizong of Tang. This makes it easier for readers/editors to understand the categories and avoids confusion when it comes to Chinese emperors who have multiple names and titles. Also, it is not necessary to categorize redirects like Qing Gaozong -- just categorize the real article that they point to. Please rename your categories, or someone else will have to do it. Thanks. --diff (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Financial system of the Dutch Republic has been nominated for discussion

Category:Financial system of the Dutch Republic, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Financial history of the Netherlands has been nominated for discussion

Category:Financial history of the Netherlands, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization again

History categories were removed from Zaandam because this is an article about a populated place, it's not an article about history. We categorize by defining characteristics only, see WP:CATDEF. History appears in this article merely in passing, like it does in nearly every populated place article that we have in Wikipedia. Also pinging @Patrug:. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History categories were removed from Capital market because it is an article about finance, it is not an article about history. We categorize by defining characteristics only, see WP:CATDEF. History appears in this article merely in passing, like it does in nearly every populated place article that we have in Wikipedia. Also pinging @Patrug:. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History categories were removed from Stock exchange, Stock market, Stockbroker, Short (finance), Technical analysis, Mutual fund and Naked short selling because they are articles about finance, they are not about history. We categorize by defining characteristics only, see WP:CATDEF. History appears in this article merely in passing. Also pinging @Patrug:. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huygens' lantern listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Huygens' lantern. Since you had some involvement with the Huygens' lantern redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real gases listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Real gases. Since you had some involvement with the Real gases redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch constellations listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dutch constellations. Since you had some involvement with the Dutch constellations redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multinational companies based in Amsterdam has been nominated for discussion

Category:Multinational companies based in Amsterdam, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch Financial Revolution has been nominated for discussion

Category:Dutch Financial Revolution, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sugar industry in the Dutch Empire has been nominated for discussion

Category:Sugar industry in the Dutch Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Australia

Please discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page. And if you continue to personally attack other editors as you did here you will be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economic history of the Dutch Empire has been nominated for discussion

Category:Economic history of the Dutch Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shipbuilding industry in the Dutch Republic has been nominated for discussion

Category:Shipbuilding industry in the Dutch Republic, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Publicly traded companies based in Amsterdam has been nominated for discussion

Category:Publicly traded companies based in Amsterdam, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Publicly traded companies of the Dutch Republic has been nominated for discussion

Category:Publicly traded companies of the Dutch Republic, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to talk page

Ive invited you to explain your edits on the talk page of European Exploration of Australia.Nickm57 (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rembrandt - copyright issues

Hi Zingvin. I'm not at all sure that you appreciate the issues involved in reproducing copyright text. It's not enough to add a citation, link and attribution - the article text must be in your own words; at least half of what you added follows your source exactly. I've therefore removed it. Please don't restore it. Instead, read and apply Wikipedia's policies on WP:COPYRIGHT, and in particular, WP:Copyright violations.

On a lesser but still important issue, what you added covered historic evaluations and varied reception of Rembrandt's work. All well and good, but the Rembrandt article seems to lack discussion of this. In general, article introductions should summarise the sourced content of the article itself - or, to put it another way, anything covered in brief by the introduction should be expanded in the main article). Haploidavey (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies formerly listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange has been nominated for discussion

Category:Companies formerly listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural depictions of Christiaan Huygens has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cultural depictions of Christiaan Huygens, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Industrial history of Sweden has been nominated for discussion

Category:Industrial history of Sweden, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New categories

Could you please take a break in creating new categories? Too many of them are inappropriate, as you must meanwhile have noticed. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Your recent editing history at New Holland (Australia) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JarrahTree 04:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read

WP:OWN and WP:PA very very carefully.

Note your over-categorisation is inappropriate - dont be surprised if you find yourself blocked, if you challenge another editor oin the way you do.

JarrahTree 02:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Category:Dutch_inventions from Shunting-yard algorithm article

Why have you removed Category:Dutch_inventions from the Shunting-yard algorithm article?

It was invented by a dutch person, therefore, this is a dutch invention. Please explain why you oppose this.

You can reply to this using Template:Reply_to which will send me a notification.

Drotyu (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch constellations has been nominated for discussion

Category:Dutch constellations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maritime history of the Dutch Empire has been nominated for discussion

Category:Maritime history of the Dutch Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Dutch constellations

Hello, Zingvin,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Dutch constellations should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch constellations .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural depictions of Willem Barentsz has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cultural depictions of Willem Barentsz, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpb^T 20:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Industrial history of the Dutch Republic has been nominated for discussion

Category:Industrial history of the Dutch Republic, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange has been nominated for discussion

Category:Companies listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Netherlandish art and Dutch art?

Hello,

I'm wondering what's the difference between Netherlandish art and Dutch art, and why did you create two categories: Category:Scholars of Dutch art and Category:Scholars of Netherlandish art?

Thank you, --Daehan (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Companies listed on the Euronext Amsterdam

A tag has been placed on Category:Companies listed on the Euronext Amsterdam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer science in the Netherlands has been nominated for discussion

Category:Computer science in the Netherlands, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Microscopic organisms described by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek has been nominated for discussion

Category:Microscopic organisms described by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 12:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]