User talk:Bergsmit

naar mijn user archief

Copied message from Request for adminship
This is copied from an archived thread. Bold editors often offend, but it is our choice whether we are offended or whether we assume good faith (Ga uit van goede wil). In particular, I am concerned about the content of this edit.


 * It is my opinion, that if an user in a discussion removes a part of the arguments of the other user, then there is no good faith

---
 * Extract from: Request_for_Adminship:_DeGraffJE:

Fred, I understand that you have been trying to get things organized with the Babel templates. However it is true that we generally follow wikipedia rules and guidelines, and there were some toes that you may have inadvertently stepped on when editing User pages.


 * Every new contributor receives an automatic start of his user page, but that template is not actual en must be improved. I proposed a renewal. But nobody gave a reaction. So I changed that message then in the user page, this has nothing to do with changing an used userpage, these were unused userpages.

The WP guideline about Editing someone else's User page is not present in the Dutch version of Wikipedia, but roughly translated:

"Als een traditie, Wikipedia biedt ruime breedtegraad aan gebruikers om hun user space als zij dat nodig achten."


 * that translation is very bad and not to understand, just as the translation of my dutch text in the relevant article. I understand the english text good, the dutch text should be traditioneel geeft Wikipedia aan gebruikers alle ruimte om hun gebruikerspagina in te vullen zoals zij dat zelf willen. I see that the right to edit the userpage is not absolute exclusive, but it is tradition to intervene as little as possible. That makes the point: there are rules. There are interpretations of the rules. There are persons who are flexible with the rules and there are persons captured in the rules. I know you as a person who is very flexible with the rules, but also using the rules if that is necessary. I remember me that you thought there was a conflict between Richard Tol and me and you proposed to (inter)mediate. In fact there was no conflict but a discussion and we dutch don't be carefull in this matters and say what we have to say and find each other in a solution, we call that: we are straight through sea. In english is this perhaps not to understand, just as our: now comes the monkey out of the sleeve (doesn't exist in english I think, but Dutch is a richer language than english and has among others more variation in words).

There are other guidelines your most recent post here is in conflict with, for example wikipedia:nl:Wikipedia:Bijt de nieuwelingen niet,
 * I am sorry, but I am not aware of a fact that I was hostile to any newcomer!

and wikipedia:nl:Wikipedia:Geen persoonlijke aanvallen.


 * I am sorry again, but I did no personal attack, I did research and comment to content and behaviour, what was in my opinion not right for a future admin and then I didn't mention the fact that that person doesn't use person infopages, because it is my opinion that Familipedia is still under construction and not fully ready to have contributors for genealogic persons. There are still so much differency in personpages to be unified to a new standard that it will last sometime before there is a new definitive standard I think.

I personally have strong emotions on many issues and I understand it is difficult to adhere to wikipedia:nl:Wikipedia:Koel blijven. I realize you may not be aware of these implicit guidelines because some of them have not been copied and adapted to Familypedia. However I cannot say this strongly enough. It is completely irrelevant whether a contributor has different religious views than we do, or whether they contribute to other sites. Really, what William Allen Shade (Elrondair) said earlier seems quite true. This looks like a personal conflict. Perhaps it is best to wait a week before either of you posts anything more on this topic. Apart from the admin request process, perhaps the two of you can take this time to resolve these differences in an amicable fashion. How does that sound? 17:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)