User talk:Fleurstigter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS








Contents

[edit] SOON IN ARCHIVE

[edit] First welcome

Hello Fleurstigter! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! LittleOldMe 12:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) |}

Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

|}


[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Fleurstigter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

[edit] Comment 1

Again, welcome! Alex Bakharev 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Rembrandt do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here:

[edit] Comment 2

link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to expand on this one. Besides that you are spamming (under the wikipedia definition) this site to several pages, the site is only visible in three browsers (IE, mozilla, firefox). Other browsers fail to load the site, and it is even impossible to return to the wikipedia using the back buttons. Moreover, the link is to the homepage of the site, not to a specific page on the site. In all regards, I am removing all links in wikipedia to this site per WP:EL. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also here a word of thanks :-) I am glad that we cleared this up!

[edit] Comment 3

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Russian National Library. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ST47Talk 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acts and Epistles of the Apostles

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia.

I am glad to see someone else interested in early books here. You included the above work on the List of illuminated manuscripts. However, the article you wrote indicated that this is a printed book. This list is for manucripts, that is, for books written by hand. I am not familiar with this book, but you mention a "Golden Section", which I think might indicate that at least some copies contained hand-illuminated portions. I this the case? (I, by the way, moved your request for more information to the talk page. Only material directly relating to the subject of an article should be included in the article.) There are some early printed books that contain hand illumination, but they, so far, have not been included on this list. Dsmdgold 14:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

> Many thanks... of course you are completely right. The Golden Section remains a mystery :-)

[edit] Links

Hi Fleur. I see you are again adding the external links, and I decided to try them in Opera, they now seem to work? And do now all browsers work?

Still, I would like you to stop adding them to the external links sections. It is fine if you use them as a reference (well, vide infra). Adding them to the external links still is spam, even if you do other edits inbetween. External links sections should be kept to a minimum, and we don't need links to every online copy of books, or to every library who has some data on a certain subject. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm.

Also, may I remind you that you do have a conflict of interest. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dirk, like I told you earlier - we are working on the browsers....What about the links that are created by OCLC/Worldcat (since today) and Project Gutenberg??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

Also, could you have a look at WP:MOS, it would be nice if those nice new articles that you generate would directly be in the general style of this encyclopedia. Oneliners have a large chance of being deleted again because they do not contain enough information to judge their WP:NOTABILITY. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Work in progress...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

I have also answered on my talkpage. But the problem is, you do have a conflict of interest, please be careful with adding links to a site you are affiliated with. Adding them in the external links is in your case spam, you could consider using them as a reference (but still, be careful with that).

That other sites are added is not a reason for you to do the same. Could you please show me pages where these links have been added? Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying no to your site, I am saying no to the way you (with a conflict of interest!) are adding them (spam), and I may say no to the others as well, depending on how they are added, and how they are used. Please give me the url's or the pages that the other links are added to, then we can decide on the others as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And please sign your posts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Beetstra, I am not going to argue with you. Just check for instance Couperus or Einstein to get an idea of Gutenberg, and then come back to me

Out of curiosity, what do I need to do to loose the redtap you were kind enough to give me?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

I will stop doing anything, until I hear from you—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.184.4 (talk • contribs)

I don't understand your point. Einstein contains a link to gutenberg, indeed. But that was not added in the last two days (there was even a link removed in the last two days. Again, I am not saying that your link should not be in the wikipedia, but a) the link should be added in a non-spammy way (spam as defined in WP:SPAM, the wikipedia definition), and b) you have a conflict of interest, so you should probably not be adding these links anyway, especially not in a spammy way. Your site contains good material, the links to that site should come anyway, but if they are added en masse (spammed), they will be removed, and if they are added by someone who has a clear conflict of interest, they will be removed as well. If you give me specific links to diff's of added links, I will investigate and see whether or not these are a) spammed links, or b) links added from a person who has a clear conflic of interest.
Even when these links are not added from either of these two point-of-view, they may not be appropriate, and hence, be removed. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm.
I hope this clarifies. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I do understand you. Thanks.


[edit] Library links

Goedemorgen, I noticed today that someone with a Koninklijke Bibliotheek IP was adding a link to the European Library to the external link section of a page. May I ask you to point people who do that to conflict of interest, and that repeated addition of these links are considered spam (even if the link itself is OK). Repeated addition may in the end result in the link being blacklisted (which would be too bad for a good link) and/or accounts being blocked. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform you that I have now removed all links which are added by you, or by IP-addresses related to Dutch libraries, and that I added a not to WT:WPSPAM. Please consider the alternatives. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what happened here. Dear Beetstra do whatever makes you happy. Good luck explaining this to the Dutch libraries!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

Dear Fleur, I know you work for the KB, and I do see the link added by addresses of KB or similar. I was hoping you could raise the issue within the KB (or wider) that the link as such is fine in the wikipedia, but that it should not be spammed by people of the European Library. It would be a waste if this link were to be blacklisted because that happened, or that people within the European Library would be blocked because of that. I am sorry if I misunderstood your position there. Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Still don't understand why you feel the need to delete links to The European Library. One moment you call it spam, the other moment it is a great resource. How can I explain what you are doing or what alternatives (being?) it has?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

The definition of the word spam in wikipedia has nothing to do with the quality of the link, only with the way it is added. Links, when added only for adding the link, is considered spam. When content is added and the link is used as a reference, it is not 'adding the link only for adding the link', and the same link is not spam. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly ... when information is added to the wikipedia page, by which one upgrades the content of page, only then a link to the original resource is allowed? (and, yes, not a large number in a short period of time...) and of course, you have a day-job judging the relevance ...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

I don't have to judge the relevance, other wikipedians will do that. But I will leave it at this. Thank you for your time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean you stop deleting my contributions? If not - I want to continue our discussion. This needs to be resolved.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

I will not revert your additions when they are adding content to an article, and I will not revert when you add content to an article with an appropriate reference (even if that is to theeuropeanlibrary.org). I will revert if you, (or an IP connected to the KB) adds the link to the external link section, or if I see an account adding only the links to external link sections (this is by the way exactly the same as what I would do when I see that happening with a link to Gutenberg, or to the Rolling Stone, or to less attributable sources). As stated in WP:A:
Citing yourself
See also: Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page.
Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you are again adding links to external links sections 3 last additions):

I am sorry, but I start to feel like blacklisting the site for some time until this issue is resolved. Please understand:

You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page.

Though this is just plain linkspam. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As you may have seen, I asked in the 'talk pages' for permission!!!!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

And, was there consensus whether the links should be added to the pages? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Link is blacklisted now (mainspace only), you may make your case at WT:WPSPAM. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting for a reaction of OTHER people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

Okay - I have seen that other people removed the links. Without any explanation by the way, even though I asked explicitly to do so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

There is an explanation, see this diff --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Again: I want to have this settled.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

I have told you many times, the link contains good information, but you (and other people from the Dutch Royal Library]] have a WP:COI, as described in the quote that I gave you:
You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page.
That means, that consensus has to be reached on the talkpage.
Plainly adding links is considered spam, and will be reverted, especially if it happens by people with a conflict of interest. The same would be done with Gutenberg, or whatever official site. I am sorry, but the link is not going to be forced into the wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have done my homework. Even though you have made this into a personal thing, I know now it's not your fault. It's the wikipedia system.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

I am sorry you see this as a personal thing, I assure you, we treat all link-additions the same, and we do consider them all. But I hope we can come to a solution here, because I am indeed not happy that the link is blacklisted. The European Library contains good and valid information, but please understand that people from organisations that are related to the european library should not add the links to the articles directly, but first discuss on the talkpage (and I mean, please do not add a message to the talkpage and directly add the link as well (or vice versa); wait for consensus and then ask a non-involved editor to add the link). Also, they are better used as references and not as external links (that goes for Gutenberg and a lot of other links as well, but as you can imagine, it is quite a task to change that, though we are working on that type of things; but we are closing the floodgates first, and then we will be cleaning the bad links). We all have to work by some policies and guidelines here as we are writing an encyclopedia, and it would become a mess if everything would be allowed.
If you and I can agree on this, I will remove the blacklisting again, and I hope that any form of linkaddition from addresses with a conflict of interest, or linkspam (as defined under the wikipedia definition) will stop or stay to minimal. I understand you cannot speak for your collegues at e.g. the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, or for collegues of other libraries through Europe, but we will handle that with the specific IP/user when necessary. I hope that you understand that all additions of theeuropeanlibrary.org will be monitored (as happens with all other links). Hope to hear soon from you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

>> I like to have a discussion with the wikipedia community, at large. Please tell me, what is the best place to start an overall discussion about co-operation (problems) between wikipedia (guidelines) and libraries? Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

That might indeed be a good place to continue our discussion. There are several places where we can do that:
I think the last one is the best place. These are the first two I can think of to report these things and I will let you know if there are more that are appropriate. I will not be the first person to answer on the posts (I will refrain from that), but I will provide all necessary information to the discussion as it progresses. Hope this helps and thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It is fair to let you know that the issue came up at the village pump already in a different context (here), I have offered my explanation there. Misplaced, but it was also discussed on meta (here). If you are going to post on the village pump, I'd suggest that you start a new subject/section. On meta (which is less appropriate, it is not blacklisted on meta, it is blacklisted on en.wikipedia.org) you can continue in the same subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

> Thanks. Please inform me when you post or see a post that discusses contributions relating to The European Library. Have a nice afternoonFleurstigter 13:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to do that (though I might miss discussions as well); just to be complete (though you already posted in that discussion), I have offered a more extensive explanation of the working of shadowbot (shadowbot is a bot that reverts blacklisted links) here. You can put pages that you want to follow on your watchlist, in that case you can see what happened to these pages. Hope this explains, and I hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

> This stuff takes a lot of time. And to be honest, having read some of the contributions (I am not referring here to you), I am not sure if it makes any sense to stay here... Probably I will give it a very last try via village pump

Anyway...Can you please get the site of the blacklist? I will not add any more pages or external links (yes I know you monitor every step I take) - not until this matter has been resolved.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talk • contribs)

I have removed the link from the blacklist:
  • [14:23] <Beetstra> !link bl del theeuropeanlibrary\.org
  • [14:23] <AALinkWatcher> theeuropeanlibrary\.org was removed
  • [14:23] <shadowbot> Item "theeuropeanlibrary\.org" has been removed from my quarantine list.
This means that the link is now not autoreverted by shadowbot anymore, but will show up in stats_bot inquiries.
I am sorry if you get the feeling I am watching every move you make, if you have access to IRC, may I invite you to have a look here, you will see that every linkaddition is monitored there.
I would also be sorry if you would decide to go away. I do believe you and other people from European libraries can contribute important information, just like every other wikipedian. I hope you will join us in creating a better encyclopaedia, but for that we all have to work according to some policies and guidelines (as linked in your welcome message on top of this talkpage). That means that you, and your collegues, have to be careful with adding links to the European Library (under the WP:COI guidelines), and certainly not adding external links only (in my interpretation, external links should not be meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia, but to give attribution to information in the wikipedia).
And you are right, many pages contain external links to many sources of which one could ask if they should be used in the way they are. At the moment we are working hard on closing the floodgates (at the moment 5.65593 links are added per minute to en.wikipedia, many of them questionable) and on cleaning links that are not necessary (see my contributions of yesterday evening). Furthermore bad links are blocked on meta, which means that pages with that link can not be saved anymore. And we are also removing plain external links on pages where they do not meet WP:EL (even if the link as such is OK, but it probably is better used as a reference). And policies and guidelines may become even stricter, if I understood the things I heard from the wikimedia board correctly. I hope this explains, and I really hope to see you contribute to this project. Have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In a minute or so, I will place a text on the dilemma we are confronting.

I have put it here: [[1]]

Bye, Fleur

    • Dirk,

Is het mogelijk om gedelete links (n.a.v. blacklisting) terug te zetten? Ik vraag dit vanwege de laatste post van Johnbod op http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#National_Library_References Fleurstigter 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what you man. For as far as I know, only links have been removed from articles to which you and 2 IP's have been adding external links to (I'll discuss with some others whether they removed links, may be), it may have been that there were links on the page before these accounts added them in which case some too many have removed. I can have a look, though they may be hard to find back. Furthermore, I don't think I removed references at all, or links where allowed per WP:EL (e.g. the link to the homepage of the European Library on the wikipage). Could you please inform me what you mean? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opera

Hi, I tried the theeuropeanlibrary.org (mainpage) again today in Opera, and I get again the error message that my browser is not supported. It would be nice if you relay that to your technical department. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I told you before ... Het is inderdaad iets waar The European Library druk bezig mee is. Maar het is ook een probleem wat deels bij Opera zit.

It's a high priority to make “The European Library” available to all browsers.

Please Fleur, calm down. I just thought that it was working before, but now suddenly it seems to have stopped working. I am answering your other post above, let me get the relevant links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Apparently my answer appears to be aggressive - sorry, was not the intention.

[edit] Linksearch via the ISBN

Dirk - kan The European Library ook hierin worden opgenomen? "Find this book" in The European Library

Verbaast me nogal dat nu onder Europe alleen maar dit staat:

   * (also see The European Library)
   * Find this book at the Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog, a European cross-library search engine.

Heb jij enig idee hoe dit werkt?

Alvast bedankt! Fleur Fleurstigter 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ik kan dat voor je doen, geen probleem, heeft de European Library een zoekfunctie voor ISBN? Dat is, eentje die van buitenaf aangeroepen kan worden. Ik moet een url hebben die er uitziet als 'http://www.europeanlibrary.org/search?ISBN=number' (geen sessies etc.), waarin de mediawiki software de ISBN code in een url kan stoppen; als de url wordt geklikt, dan moet dat dus op de externe server het correcte resultaat opleveren.
Trouwens, zou je WP:FOOT kunnen bekijken, specifiek de werking van de templates {{ref}}/{{cite}} en cite.php (de tags <ref> en <<references>, dat is een nette en consistente manier om referenties te gebruiken in documenten. Ik vind dat persoonlijk 'netter' dan allen een link in de sectie 'referenties', dan weet je nog niet voor welke informatie de link gebruikt is. Groet, Dirk Beetstra T C 11:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Super, bedankt! Zal 's rondvragen... Zelf ga ik zeker de referentie-template bestuderen. Nogmaals dank. Fleurstigter 14:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] europ lib

why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.158.113.56 (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The European Library is mentioned in a posting at WP:COI/N

Hello Fleurstiger. An issue has been raised about The European Library at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. You are welcome to add your own comments there. EdJohnston 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I indeed opened up a case on WP:COIN. I am sorry, should have notified you directly after I posted (got caught in a conversation). --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My case, and my reasoning.

Hi Fleur, I will do this in English, so other people can also read this discussion. I am indeed following all additions (not only yours), that is what the linkfeeds and user:COIBot were designed for. We are doing our best to improve the wikipedia, and that is why several wikipedians are watching the link feeds and page edit feeds in order to uphold wikipedias five pillars.

Early on (March 6) I asked you to reconsider your edits, your edits were not according to our manual of style, still, less than two weeks ago (May 1), you again create a document that is not in any way formatted. And on closer examination I noticed that the text of that article is an almost direct copy of the page on the European Library. That is considered copyvio, and may very well be in violation of WP:COPYRIGHT.

You are mainly adding external links (now formatted as references), you are not improving the wikipedia. All the recent linkadditions to libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org are made by you. And several of them are simply not appropriate in the articles where you add them. Your last addition of today to Serbian culture (diff is an example of that. You add the reference, but did not use the information to add information to the document (which would contain information why that reference should be on the serbian culture page), and the link is there not directly appropriate (I also asked you to have a look at WP:FOOT). Do you expect that all libraries that have any book or other information that can be related to Serbian culture to have a link there. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. The link may be appropriate on pages of some of the treasures, if the treasures are notable enough to be in the wikipedia (and I do expect most of them will be).

On top of this all, I, and some others as well, think that you have a conflict of interest. The guideline there says that:

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.

Since that concern has been expressed, I was hoping that you would try to work that out with us and try not to trigger that concern again. Just as a remark. I am a chemist, working in a field of organometallic chemistry. My research at the moment is focussed at Carbene-ligands (spec. N-heterocyclic carbenes). While I know a lot about that subject, I am not editing that article (maybe except for a vandal-reversion or a typo-repair). I am not adding the name of my boss to the list of people who work in this field, I am not adding references to research papers I have written in the past. I might involve myself in discussion on talkpages about that subject.

But in this way I can summarise the majority of your edits. If you see my edit history, you will see that I revert a lot of these edits (you will not see all the pages I have put up for a speedy deletion becuase of blatant advertising or non-notable biography). You are certainly not the only person that triggers our concerns on appropriateness of edits.

You have not tried to ask for help on how you could contribute to the wikipedia or considered to change your edit-style, no, you keep on performing the same type of edits that I, and others, have expressed our concerns about. You have had your say at the Village pump, and heard some positive and negative remarks. I decided to leave you for a couple of weeks, and hope that you would at least consider looking at the guidelines and policies, and maybe consider that you might have to change your edit style. You apparently did not.

I am sorry, you are the Marketing and Communications representative for the European Library. And though I understand that you want to help Wikipedia, I am asking you, again, to reconsider your edit style drastically. Please edit conform WP:MOS, using references appropriately: when you use information from a page on libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org add a reference to that specific information, when using other information from other sites, please add those references as well. And when you only want to add a link, please make a post to the talkpage, and wait until an uninvolved editor adds the link for you. I am sorry, but I get a very strong feeling that all your edits are selected so that there can be a link to libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org, while you work for that organisation. And thát is exactly where I have my concerns here. If I see an editor only adding criterion.com links, or Gutenberg links, I will also have a look at his/her edits (the former is a recent case which resulted in an indefinite block of the user, and I don't even have proof that the person is involved in the website).

I am very willing to go through a couple of your latest edits and discuss them with you. Maybe we can then work on a better way of continuing this because at the moment, apparently, we are annoying each other with the performed edits and remarks.

I hope that we can work together on this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archimandrite Kyprianos

Hi, just noticed this recent creation of yours. I have a feeling Archimandrite Kyprianos is one and the same as Archbishop Kyprianos but earlier in his "career". The book you refer to was published around the time he must have been at Machairas Monastery, but i have not been able to quickly locate any encyclopaedic verification of this. Here is a source[2] however that suggests it might be the same person. As such i think we might have to merge the two articles into Kyprianos. StephP 11:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar situations

Hello Fleur. I just wanted to leave you a message, since several situations which show similarity to the situation with the link-additions to theeuropeanlibrary.org have come up, lately. The discussions are scattered around different wikipedia pages, but here is a point where all cases are linked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Another discussion about a library has come up: here. I hope you can give your input. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essaying

Hi, I know we are not always going on on a positive foot, but since there have now been several similar situations (I have given you some links earlier), I decided that it was time to summarise our concerns and to write an essay on the subject, both with why this should be a concern for the wikipedia, and what can be done about it to improve the situation.

I would like to ask you to have a look through this essay User:Beetstra/Archivists, and maybe you could give me some recommendations on the talkpage, or even add to the document. Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now

Would be interested in hearing concrete suggestions

G. F

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

I have blocked your account. After several warnings and discussions, you still insist in performing link additions only. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm! You have a conflict of interest and in performing your linkadditions only to websites you are strongly involved with you violate our neutral point of view policy. Please adapt your editing style, and, as has been suggested to you more often, add content and citations. The site you are working for contains a wealth of information, please, please use the information. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Hi Dirk. You are clearly after a reaction.... Too bad... I know enough...

Fleur

Fleur, you have been pointed out our policies and guidelines for quite some time now, still you are not willing to interact, but perform link additions only. Why do you insist in only adding these links, while that is in violation of our policies and guidelines? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to discuss anything with you anymore. It is pointless. You have taken your position and your are not willing (and able?) to listen to other arguments / ideas. And no... I will not react to your article... enough is enough.

Fleur