User talk:Bart Versieck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Problems with English

Bart, it is extremely irritating that you presume to know English well, when you don't. To say that Elizabeth Bolden lives in a nursing home 'over there' is completely ridiculous. Also, your penchant for adding unnecessary 'and's' is irritating as well. I scored a perfect score on the GRE writing test. I know English, and your English needs work. Thus, if another editor deletes your bad grammar, you should accept it as such. 65.81.27.208 06:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are an anonymous user, so why should I listen to you at all? Extremely sexy 10:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Goeiedag/Hello Bart Versieck, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, .


[edit] What is your problem with headlines

Bart, I'm extremely irritated that you are going around destroying headlines. Last I checked, the main words in headlines are capitalized. Thus, for you to change "Problems with Documentation Process" to "Problems with documentation process" is a violation of grammar use. → R Young {yakłtalk} 07:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert, for your information, someone already did that and I only reverted another change: just look at this previous edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longevity_claims&diff=56051069&oldid=56044549, and write to that very person, please. Extremely sexy 14:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REDLINKS

Bart, sometimes red links are good for FUTURE adds. If someone clicks on the link and there's no one there, maybe they can start an article. → R Young {yakłtalk}

Okay then, Robert. Extremely sexy 23:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woops...

...my bad on William Evan Allan's centennarian category. Forgot to take my dyslexia medicine. Sorry about that... wknight94 15:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That's no problem, Mister Knight. Bart Versieck 22:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Bart, why do you insist on de-capitalizing titles, such as "Veterans by Country." Surely a newspaper capitalizes titles! Also, please stop deleting links to "Longevity Claims." Look, the purpose of "Longevity Claims" is to list claimed ages, so we can see that while one person might claim to be 115, another claims to be 118. Also, I prefer to consider Pawel Parniak a longevity claim, not a longevity myth. To me, a "myth" is not true (but may have some allegorical or storytelling value). Clearly, claims to 160, 150, 140 are clearly myths. However, age "115" is possible (if not very likely). Thus, we cannot say for sure that Pawel Parniak is a myth unless evidence is found to support that contention. In the meantime, let's list gray-area cases in longevity claims. As noted, the rules for inclusion:

1. Must be less than 130 years old (mainly 113-129). '

2. Must have a claim in the news, including a birthdate.

3. The claim has not been validated or invalidated.

If a claim is invalidated, we can move them to "longevity myth."

Sincerely Robert Young → R Young {yakłtalk} 22:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert, first of all, "country" is written without a capital letter "c", and, secondly, longevity claims is a redirect to longevity myths. Bart Versieck 23:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed longevity Claims should be changed into longevity claims, which is currently a redirect to longevity myths, so I asked the administrators to delete it in order for me to be ably to change its title. Bart Versieck 23:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Capovilla

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, as it is considered vandalism. The article is being kept, but please leave the AfD notice until the discussion is closed. Thank you. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood, but it was a silly request, done by someone not knowing the facts. Bart Versieck 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ding Junhui

Hi. Can I ask where you got 4 March 1987 for Ding's birthdate? worldsnooker.com says 1 April, as does most of the sources I've seen. -- Arwel (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.ibsf.org/profiles/dingjunhui.php

[edit] Proposed table for WWI Survivors

Hi Bart, can you give feedback on the table that I have proposed in Talk:Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I - Rye1967 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I can in a moment.Bart Versieck 22:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of personnel in WWI

I've added a sentence on the number of military casualties of WWI to Surviving veterans of World War I to illustrate the significance of the number of survivors. It would be better if the article had the total number of participants but I can't find that on Wikipedia. My interest in the list is related to the age of the surviors, I have no knowlege of the war. Can you help find the figure for the article or direct me to someone who might have more expertise? - Rye1967 00:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no clue, but you could always ask this at http://www.victoriacross.net/forum_topic.asp?tid=677, dear Rye. Bartje 22:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you removed Kosa from the list of surviving veterans? Did he die? If so, you need to change the world totals at the end of the article. Thanks. Czolgolz 12:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, looks like I caught you mid-edit. Good work.

Thanks, and forgiven, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schlieffen-Plan links, edit-summary, and peacefulness

Hello there, Bart,
Ahh! now I see your point. In fact, at first I didn't understand because you unlinked only one Schlieffen-Plan where there were many others after it, which you at first did not unlinked as well. It was for that reason that I relinked it. Especially that I see no trouble at all in linking one item many times or whenever it occurres in the one article. On the contrary, I think it is quite very useful, especially if the linked item is so strongly related to the article: Sometimes the reader at first is not really interested in that linked item, but then, as He or She goes on reading and find that item appearing again and again, they start becoming interested in it. At this moment, if the item is linked only once when it was first mentioned, the reader will have to interupt his reading in order to find it, which itself might take sometime especially if He or She is of the kind that does not make use of the search capabilities of their web-browsers (and how many those are! :-)), this applies too much to the Schlieffen-Plan. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be any harm in linking things afterall, especially if they were so closely related to the main topic (again such with the S. Plan!) apart from that the text will appear all in blue each time! But most of Wikipedia pages are already full of such blue text, of course, including the WWI page, so it doesn't really matter, nor that the reader will really notice it (unless He or She wants to notice it!).
But I noticed in your response, in your "edit summary", that your were upset at my rv: "For your information, I unlinked it again, because there is already a link to it in a previous alinea"_ that was what you siad, and I know that this sort of response might have been caused by an assumption of yours that I was being unappreciative of your contribution, which is indeed, I assure you, the last thing I would want to do! Nothing really makes me more happy than when someone makes a constructive and useful edit - that's what the whole thing is really about, in the most practical and abstract senses of the thing that is Wikipedia. But the truth is that my rv came in misunderstanding, or in fact, no understanding at all of your edit, as I tried to explain above: That you unlinked only one item where there were still many others later-on. Here, in the first place, I must ask you to try to describe or indicate in the "edit summary" box what your edit is about as briefly as you may - it is always better than nothing. Because sometimes when you do this, a potential misunderstanding of your edit may be avoided. You see here now, after you wrote an explanation in your second edit, I got ya!! But generally, I noticed that also in your other contributions, you generally seldom write anything in the "edit summary" box. Of course, it is in the end always up to you, as well as what should happen with all those unlinked Schlieffen-Plan ex-links(!), but this is just an advice - it is only fortunate that in this great project, no one really has an authority over another! writing in the edit-summary box also is useful as to indicate whether the edit is made by a vandal or not; sometimes I just don't compare versions if the newer revision is being supplied with good and comprehensive edit-summary note.
Sorry for the long note, but still one more thing to be mentioned here: As you have seen it was all this misunderstanding that derived me to rv your edit, and nothing else. Misunderstanding is something that is very likely to occur in our activity here and in most other online interaction among the people. This I personally believe is because the online interaction is more difficult and more demanding than the other forms of interaction which indeed always depend on more than just mere language all the time. So, please, I must ask you to try to cool down, and do not so promptly assume that whomever interferes with you in the editing of whatever detail is someone who's doing it in bad faith. The ideal is that editors and contributors WANT to build a good article, that's the aim, and nothing really that pertains to them personally and directly. In this regard I have read a number of articles on that matter, which were really helpful for me, not only in determining how my ACTION would be, in Wikipedia, but more significantly, how my REaction should be. I found so many responses so far, and I am always contented that non of them can ever upset my own relationship with what I'm doing here, because I really must by enjoying it if I am to continue doing it! Here are those articles: Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Criticism is Feedback , Forgive & Forget , Principle of Constant Respect, Along with the links provided earlier, these might be of great help as to the, yes, BEST kind of social behavior in such a great project. the last 3 links are particularly intersting and I am convinced that eventually, most users of Wikipedia, and similar projects, will most inevitably become so accustomed to it.
I wish you an ever-increasing enjoyment, editing and transforming that great project, Maysara 09:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks, and likewise then. Bartje 10:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nederlandse Wikipedia

Hoi Bart, met [http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Nicklaarakkers]. Ik kan je niet via de Nederlandstalige wiki meer bereiken want ze hebben mij geblokkeerd. Ik begrijp alleen niet waarom, waarschijnlijk omdat ik deze [[1]] afbeelding hebt gemaakt in reactie op het steeds maar op de verwijderlijst zetten van mijn afbeeldingen, terwijl ik die toch altijd duidelijk laat vergezellen met een logo. Kan jij misschien verhaal halen bij [http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Siebrand] waar deze onzin op slaat? Groeten Nicklaarakkers 19:21, 14 May 2006

Ja, dat wil ik wel doen, maar ik ben daar al wel sinds enkele maanden niet meer op actief d.t.v. die herrieschopper uit Thailand (zijn "naam" ben ik ondertussen zelfs ook al vergeten, zo "belangrijk" vind ik hem). Extremely sexy 18:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REGARDING FRAUDULENT AMERICAN WORLD WAR I VETERANS

Counting three "World War I ERA" veterans as actual World War I veterans is shamefully dishonest. This list is not an accounting of "World War I ERA" veterans -- it is a list of Wolrd War I veterans, period. A World War I veteran is someone who serve in the armed forces during World War I, a conflict which ended with an armistice on November 11, 1918. A man who enlisted in 1919 did not serve in World War I. What's more, since he enlisted after the war was over, he did not even enlist with the intention of serving in the war. "World War I ERA" veterans do not receive a World War I pension from the Department of Veterans Affairs; no one, except a few cranks on this board, considers them to be the equivalent of World War I veterans. No other nation on this list includes "World War I ERA veterans" on their rolls; why should they be included on the U.S. list? It comes across as an embarrassing attempt to pad our numbers. If the purpose of this page is to keep an ACCURATE census of living World War I veterans worldwide -- and that's what I thought it was, anyway -- then these three men should be removed from the list permanently. If not, then heck, let's put Merlyn Krueger back up there, too. Hey, he SAID he was a World War I veteran, didn't he? 68.175.88.20 04:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely do see your point, but "fraudulent" and "cranks" is a bit harsh, is it not, and you should have pointed this out at the talk page of that particular article instead of continuously reverting all our work without any justification at all, plus ask Robert too. Extremely sexy 07:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johanna Booyson

I've reverted your nomination of this article for speedy deletion. There are a number of problems:

  • You don't give any reason for speedy deleting it. Please don't use the {{delete}} tag as it gives admins no information abut why you believe the article should be deleted.
  • You replaced the content of the article with the tag. This is not the proper procedure. You should add the tag to the top of the article, leaving the content in place. Again this makes it possible for admins to see whether the article should be deleted or not.
  • Most importantly, I see nothing wrong with this redirect. Since you offer no explanation of why it should be deleted, I have reverted it back to its former state.

Thanks, Gwernol 17:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that you've done this to a whole sequence of articles claiming in edit summaries that "it's not a redirect at all". I don't understand that comment since these very clearly are redirects. That is also not a criteria for speedy deletion even if it were true. I must ask you to stop doing this. Thanks, Gwernol 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, so then I will reinstate that particular tag for all 7 articles involved right now and explain exactly why they should be removed, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the reasons you cite are not valid criteria for speedy deletion. The fact that an article may be written in the future isn't a good reason to delete the redirects now. The people are mentioned on the article redirected to, so until someone writes enough to justify a separate article, its perfectly valid to keep these redirects in place. I'm reverting your tags back, please don't replace them again. Thanks, Gwernol 18:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But so then you can redirect anything to anything you want, which is really ridiculous. Extremely sexy 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. These are legitimate redirects: Johanna Booyson is mentioned in the longevity article so redirecting from Johanna Booyson to that article makes perfect sense. Someone searching for "Johanna Booyson" gets redirected to the article that at least has some information about that person. When someone is ready to write a full article about Booyson they can do so simply by editing the article and replacing the Redirect (hopefully adding at least a "See also" link to the longevity article). What's wrong with that? Gwernol 18:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see your point, but I would prefer to create an article about those 7 persons involved before referring to other articles mentioning them by using or via redirects, moreover, then they would definitely be superfluous and replaced by a link under "see also", as you pointed out correctly, hence. Extremely sexy 18:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal of [[ ]] around date on Henry Allingham

I wikified the date so that a signed in user can view the date in their preferred format, be it 6 June or June 6, etc. Please do not dewikify it again. TheEnlightened 15:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But, as I explained for my removal, it's already wikified at the beginning of the article. Extremely sexy 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You appeared to of missed the point, the date may of been wikified before hand but this particular instance it was not, thus not in a readers perferred format. Also is does not hurt to have something wikified twice in an article incase the reader doesn't notice the first instance and i cannot really see the downside to that, other than the pages file size may be 0.009 kb larger. TheEnlightened 18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant in fact, so no double wikifications in the same article. Extremely sexy 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You didn't clearly state what you also meant but if it was about the file size being bigger then you may want to know that i was being sarcastic, the actual increase in file size from the additions of two open and close square brackets would be so small that it is probably impossible to measure without out great effort.
I feel that your comments also make me believe that you didn't understand that i didn't wikify the date so people could go to the date's article but so that the reader could view the date in their preferred format and so stops any possible edit wars between people who prefer one format over another.
On another angle if you do not want the date wikified as your are worried about Wikipedia's bandwidth and hosting I can assure you that the addition of the brackets then you are being over sensitive (and taking the wrong course of action) as wikipedia has plently of bandwidth and activily encourages users too add to articles and create new ones. Or if you are worried about user's with dial up connections then you are again taking the wrong course of action. TheEnlightened 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it's just about the links to the same article featuring in it, hence, my dear friend, and, by the way, there is just one format (being June 6 in this particular case), because the other one is in fact a redirect (c.q. 6 June). Extremely sexy 10:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no problem with double wikilinks in an article as i have stated many times before. You also appeared to misunderstand what i said about the wikipedia software. If a user states a date in an article, say for instance the 6th day of June and writes it like June 6 in square brackets the wikipedia software will make it appear in the format which a signed in user prefers. It knows which format the user prefers as it is set in "Date and Time" of tab their "My Preferences" page. You can experiment and try this yourself. TheEnlightened 14:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for telling me, Enlightened One. Extremely sexy 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joanna DeRoover

Hello Bart, might you be able to help provide some references for the Joanna DeRoover article? Everything I come across appears to be a Wikipedia derivative, and the original author was an anonymous editor. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay then: I will take a look at it right now, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeanne Calment

Whoops. You're right. The external link does refer to the same book in the References section, but the References section doesn't refer to the website. Somehow my brain muddled that up. Sorry. Twisted86 06:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You are forgiven, my dear twisted friend. Extremely sexy 07:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
La! Then all is well in the world! Twisted86 07:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, apart from myself that is . Extremely sexy 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edna Parker AFD

Hi Bart. Please do not in any way alter, rephrase or otherwise edit the decisions of closing administrators in deletion debates. Thanks in advance for your absolute cooperation on this point. Deizio talk 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay: sorry then. Extremely sexy 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice one, same goes for below :) Deizio talk 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Kiss for you . Extremely sexy 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on linking

Please ensure that when making minor edits to create bluelinks you don't redirect to disambiguation pages or mislink. Your recent edit to Neil Robertson (snooker player) created a link to Joe Perry, which is a disambiguation page. The correct form is Joe Perry, markup: [[Joe Perry (snooker player)|Joe Perry]]. Deizio talk 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well: I in fact wanted to check this after having supper. Extremely sexy 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Sinédia-Cazour

May I ask why you deleted the prod on Julia Sinédia-Cazour? They are legitimate claims for deletion. You deleted it without a comment and without any discussion. I am reverting it. If you do not agree with the prod, state why.--Thomas.macmillan 16:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • My apologies, as I just found your comments on the talk page. --Thomas.macmillan 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Apologies accepted, but she really is notable. Extremely sexy 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of vandalism

I am a long-standing editor of the article Richard Nixon. Please refrain from making allegations of vandalism when they are, in fact, simply edits you do not particularly like. Thanks. Cripipper 11:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's simply not true at all that I don't like them, but you linked someone again who had already been linked, hence. Extremely sexy 12:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November 12th, 2006

Hello, Bart. I did some calculating on Ford & Reagan's ages (#of days). Ford's 34,089th day won't be 'till November 12th, 2006. I've edited part of the first paragraph of the Gerald Ford article (removing the mentioning of Ford having become the longest-lived President), to reflect your correct calculations. I'm sorry for ever doubting you, I'm glad you stuck to your guns. What a sharp eye. PS: Here's hoping, for good health to Jerry as he's on the eve of breaking Reagan's record. GoodDay 23:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, my dear friend, and likewise, so "good day" to you and to him, but, by the way, what's your first name? Extremely sexy 10:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
My first name is 'Good' GoodDay 17:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it really (no joking)? Extremely sexy 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by PMA. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

{{unblock|I didn't know you were an administrator, but blocking me for reverting something is a bit harsh}}

Wait a moment, I've approached the blocking admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of speediness, I'm provisionally unblocking you, since at least one other admin and myself also found the block exaggerated. However, please be aware that this is subject to further consultation with PMA, who I couldn't reach just now. And do please take this as a warning to be more careful with talking of "vandalism" when reverting other users, okay? -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, and I obviously will. Extremely sexy 09:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Please don't de-wikify dates. The wikified version is important to support the various date formats used around the world (even when it's redundant). I noticed you did this in the JFK article you just edited, so I thought I'd mention it. Rklawton 23:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I do understand what you mean, but I did this because his exact date of death is already wikified at the very beginning of the article, hence. Extremely sexy 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikifying dates has nothing to do with redundancy and everything to do with displaying the date properly for folks used to reading dates with a different format. The wikified date will display according to the preferences expressed by each user. For example, many Europeans would type today's date as 28 November 2006. By wikifying each and every instance of a date in an article, we ensure that users, no matter where they are from, read the date in a format friendly for them. As a result, I must ask you to not de-wikify any dates. It's disruptive. Rklawton 01:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, but as a result his exact date of date could be mentioned and wikified 5 times in the article: strange. Extremely sexy 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That is correct, and that is fine. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for details. Rklawton 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If that's the policy, so be it. Extremely sexy 01:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missorting

As of tomorrow, it will be one year since you claimed to understand how the indexing sort keys work. So why are you messing around with missorting again now?[2] Gene Nygaard 16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So you mean in fact this applies for first names as well then, huh? Extremely sexy 17:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep. All the characters get indexed. Spaces, too, or asterisks, hyphens, whatever (that's why we use one of them for the main article in a category, to get it at the top of the listing, before the alphabetical entries. And strip other punctuation especially at the beginning before the first letter, which isn't that common but sometimes happens, as with an inverted ¿ at be beginning of the title of some Spanish song or other works of art. Gene Nygaard 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, Gene. Extremely sexy 12:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Somebody nominated that article for deletion. Gene Nygaard 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I know, and he really is stupid. Extremely sexy 19:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Pretty strange that you haven't added a Keep comment in that case. Gene Nygaard 09:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I will right now, and will you too, but I had also been waiting for Robert, who hasn't even responded yet. Extremely sexy 14:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/User_talk%7EBart_Versieck_5ad9.html"