User talk:Jan olieslagers

Hello, it seems that you are reverting some of my recent short description edits. Please see Wikipedia:Short description for why I make these edits. There has also been some discussion from other users on my talkpage about this with some added conversation and some more links. I hope this clears this situation up a bit. Greetings, Redalert2fan (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing with patience and in politeness - two points I value very much! I must grant you that you are doing your best to comply with an official recommendation; still, there is no real need, and if we really want to do this, it should be very concise, and concentrate on the essentials. Not easy! Kind regards, Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reaction, I totally agree that this is a big project to undertake with many different problems and approaches, but better guidelines in the future should fix these things. As you have said strictly speaking currently there is no need for these edits, however in the future this will be needed for mobile users, personally I find it better to make these edits now and clean the descriptions up a bit later than to just wait and only fix it when the time comes. Perhaps a difference of insight on how (or even when) we edit on Wikipedia. Furthermore you aren't the only one to have notices allot of my edits, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Short Description for another small section of talk. Thanks again, Redalert2fan (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my sincere appreciation for your polite and patient conversation. It is clear to me I have no issue at all with yourself, nor with your actions; but I do have a serious issue with the recommendation you are adhering to. As I see things, it takes us (again!) further than ever from our goal of creating an encyclopedia, going ever more towards "easy gulps", not to say "infotainment". Bah!! Kindly yours! Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, I've reverted your WP:CUTANDPASTE move. If a page cannot be moved over a redirect, then use WP:RM. That said, I don't believe that such a move should take place since it looks like the standard name for the location with code KZG is ...Airport rather than ...Airfield. Please discuss/confirm at the page (or at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft if you don't get a response). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That goes down quite badly here. Why couldn't you _first_ talk/discuss and act afterwards? Now you make me leave the matter in disgust. I feel very poorly awarded for my well-meant efforts, and consider your behaviour rude, impolite, and disruptive. You certainly removed all my motivation for improving the article - I'll NOT bother about it anymore. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan olieslagers. I've undone your move of Mirandela Airport. We don't get to change the name of an airport unless we own it.

If you don't think an aerodrome is up to your standards, the term to use is airstrip (q.v.), and that would go in the body of the article. Cheers Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MY standards are not relevant! Ownership has nothing to do with it, either. What counts is the definition of an Airport: "an aerodrome with extended facilities". This little airfield is not an airport and never has been one; our article was incorrectly titled all the while. Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan. Sorry for not replying right away, but I don't live on Wikipedia. Don't start a page move war. We don't get to change airport names based on Wikipedia definitions. I suggest you look up Airfield. Ambiguous. Rather than start with airports that show up on my watchlist, try moving Covent Garden, which doesn't meet the definition of a garden. You did look up Airstrip, didn't you? Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing politely. Still I do not agree. The Aeródromo at Mirandela is much more than an airstrip, having a hard runway, hangars, a resident aeroclub and more. But it is not an airport either, lacking the facilities to handle commercial air transport. I positively refuse to call it an airport or an airstrip, so "Airfield" is my compromise proposal. If you have a better idea, come up with it! May I also insist that you do not say "we do" or "we don't" without a reference - there are lots and lots of WP:xxx references, feel free to cite from them. And if we do not apply our own definitions, then what do we make them for? For all the world to refer to, except ourselves? That's ridiculous. Of course our own definitions must be applied. Excuse me if I sound rude, but your arguments fail to make an impression on me. Regards, Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. The people who built the airport and use the airport are who gets to decide its name. All airport lists call it Mirandela Airport. If you want to call it an airfield, do so in the body of the article. Also, it is perfectly capable of handling commuter aircraft. I've edited many third-world airports with shorter dirt/grass runways that have commercial service. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The people who built and use the airfield call it "Aerodromo de Mirandela" ... All our dispute is how to translate the Aerodromo bit into English. According to our own definition it is not an airport. NO it is NOT an airport. Is doesn't meet the criteria of "extended facilities for commercial air transport". What then to call it? That certain other websites do name it erroneously is not our concern. Neither do ALL aerodrome listings call it an "airport". Also, what is done in the bush is not relevant here - my idea would be to call most of those aerodromes "airstrip" but it is no concern of mine. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, not even the local politicians know quite what’s going on there! Last month, there was a debate about holding a satellite flying contest there, but that ended up being held in nearby Caransebeș. Subsequently, a new charter was approved for Cioca. So I assume something still exists there, but it’s not operational just at the moment. - Biruitorul ^Talk 12:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! If you have more news, regarding this or other aerodromes, I'll be glad to hear of it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I don't understand why you're changing perfectly appropriate SNCB article names & references to SNCB/NMBS. Please, could you explain your actions, especially considering that SNCB is the company name to English-speaking countries? They themselves have made this known, and don't need someone trying to adjust their public image from the backseat. Taking a look above me, I can tell that you do have a reputation for starting unnecessary page-move wars, and it's extremely frustrating to have someone try and doctor the public image out of "political correctness". Again; try moving Covent Garden because it doesn't fit the definition of a garden.

GWR 2019 (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GWR 2019: I do not accept the notion that "SNCB is the company name to English-speaking countries" - to the degree that it is, it is incorrectly so. As I already pointed out, there are historical explanations, but there is no reason for WP to cling to an historical incorrectness. I am preparing a more in-depth reaction, for posting in [[1]], please continue the discussion there; and please do not revert-war. Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jan olieslagers: There shouldn't be any "setting things right". We've decided to keep it as SNCB, please don't change it to NMBS. The company themselves refer to themselves as SNCB. Wikipedia is NOT YOUR POLITICALLY CORRECT PLAYGROUND; you can't just go back on an already determined discussion and change it for personal benefit. I shall be reverting your changes promptly. GWR 2019 (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, I may well report you for edit-warring. I was not involved in the earlier discussion, and am only now taking up my position. And this is not only about political correctness; please check the example I gave about Madras vs. Chennai: even if the city was called Madras at one time, today it is Chennai. Even if the Belgian State Railways were called "SNCB" at one time, today they're not. Allow me to insist you wait 24 hours with any reversals, as stated I am preparing a more in-depth reaction. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GWR 2019:(copying over what I said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Belgian_loco_naming_(again)): This is a difficult discussion to have due to the political sensitivities in Belgium concerning language. The company doesn't have a legal English name, but it has a Dutch and a French name, both of which are on equal footing at a legal level. The fact that the company calls itself SNCB on its English website is most likely simply due to a French person being the webmaster or head of the department and nothing more. But that's only a calculated guess based on experience working with them professionally, so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this. We could just ask them on Twitter whether they see "SNCB" as the official English version of their company name and get it over with like that? Glodenox (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Fane (acoustics), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So be it. It can stay there forever, for all I care. I did my best to bring in my 0,02 €, if that is not valued then so be it. I will not insist, and quite likely will never try again. Down with negativism! Anyone who believes in the true spirit of this project - as I understand it - should improve on articles judged sub-standard, rather than refute them. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Nazi comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Units seems to have ticked several people off. Nigel Ish appears to have taken it as a personal attack, so you might want to retract or clarify that comment before someone else gets the wrong impression. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. What I stated is that the ISO/metric units were favoured by the dictatorial regimes, and are thus unlikely to be adopted (in "politically correct" countries, at least - the Russians still use them). That is a fact and I'll stand by it. That some people read incorrectly is not my responsability. I do have added a word of explanation on Nigel's talk page. And by the way I did not mention one single dictator, I named two. Why do you single out one? Jan olieslagers (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave an example of something practiced by a dictator that has not become politically incorrect as a result. It was not my intention to single one out, I just needed one example and that was the first one that came to my mind. I highly doubt that most countries that refuse to switch to the metric system do so just because the "bad guys" used it. The metric system had nothing to do with their war crimes. If I recall correctly, though the metric units were the official units of the USSR, some SSRs still used unofficially used imperial units, and thus when the USSR collapsed, the countries that formed from those SSRs made the imperial units official. Conversion of an entire country from the imperial to metric system is not an easy task. Even if it becomes the official system of the country, the people must be open to the change, and sometimes the imperial system is rooted too deep into their society that any attempt to change is destined to fail. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all clear, no worries. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I recalled wrong about the USSR, I happen to know that in the US no one seems to care (or know) that the metric system was used by the Nazis or Soviets. We simply don't want to change, because we have no reason to. I'm sure that in someone's mind the metric system symbolizes nazism and communism, but they are in the minority. Unlike the swastika and the hammer and sickle, I've never heard of anyone that calls or has called for the metric system to be banned. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I largely agree, though perhaps in other words: the US simply don't want to change, in spite of any kind of international normalisation or recommendation. This is of course a political matter, which makes it both delicate and off-topic, but the US is more and more singling itself out of the international community. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, among the public at large few will know about this "units" discussion, in the US and elsewhere. Delegates at ICAO will know, though, if they are more or less competent, and acquainted with history. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not political, its that the imperial system is rooted too deep in our society for any attempts to succeed. We're not trying to single ourselves out of the international community, and we've tried converting many times, but the metric system never caught on and we always go back to the imperial system. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the Brits could manage, though... and I should think they were even closer to the imperial system. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the US, metrication in the UK is political. There are laws mandating the use of the metric system and restricting the use of the imperial system. There were also plans to remove imperial units from business entirely, but due to public resistance these plans have been scrapped. The metrication process of the UK is not complete almost 60 years after it started, and it likely won't be complete for several decades if they don't scrap metrication plans altogether. As I said, converting an entire country to the metric system is not easy, especially if the imperial system is rooted in its society. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Belgian Railways Class 52, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jan olieslagers. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Belgian Railways Class 52".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BUGGER OFF!!!!! I'VE HAD IT WITH THIS "REMOVE RATHER THAN IMPROVE" POLICY! AND HAVE SWORN I WILL NEVBER AGAIN TRY TO ADD AN ARTICLE. IF YOU REALLY MUST REMOVE IT INSTEAD OF BEING CONSTRUCTIVE THEN GO AHEAD!!!!! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, hang on a minute and think about it. Everyone contributing to Wikipedia does this voluntarily. How can we expect others to improve articles we have created when their interests may lie elsewhere? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People whose interests lie elsewhere should keep their bloody hands OFF!!!!! If you cannot improve then you are welcome to mark a request for improval but you shouldn't even think of removing well-meant efforts. This kind of behaviour kills good will - mine at least. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jan olieslagers. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "National Railway Company of Belgium Class 52".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to consult my earlier comments on the matter. In a slightly less bad mood now, I am still very negative about so many people spending so much effort on removing articles, instead of improving on them. Fazit: if you wish to remove my work and discourage me from creating new articles, okay, so be it. That you feel compelled to rub salt in the wound sounds like sadism - okay, I'll have to tolerate that, too, apparently. Enjoy! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jan olieslagers: My suggestion is don't use draft but call a short article a {{stub}} Peter Horn User talk 20:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jan olieslagers. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fane".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about airfield? [2] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "airfield" is quite okay. That's what we say in the title, too, after all :) For your information: I much prune on the inappropriate usage of the word "airport", especially North Americans tend to call all aviation terrains "airports". In fact it is - once again! - a matter of variance between several "kinds" of English. Myself like the term "aerodrome" because it is the official term in the ICAO definition "any area of land or water, intended, exclusively or not, for the operations of aeroplanes". But "airfield" will do very well, in this case, go ahead if you will! And, by the way, thank you for reaching out, and for discussing constructively! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, will do. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd be interested in English definitions of airfields, aerodromes, airports ?--Bouzinac (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouzinac: ICAO documents are the way to go, unfortunately they are not freely available. At some point in time, certain CAA's have published them, ISTR the Danish, for example. But no solid time-proof answer, I'm afraid.

Also, as I pointed out before, it is very difficult (and annoying) that the same words, or their linguistical equivalents, have different meanings and sometimes even different legal interpretations, in different countries/languages/cultures. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings are (but I'm French, not English at all so I can be false) that vocabulary would follow that order : airstrip < airfield < aerodrome < airport < spaceport (yes there is one ^^) . In French, the order would be champ d'aviation < piste aérienne < aérodrome < aéroport.--Bouzinac (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I did suspect you to be French :) Il n'y a pas - dans mon interprétation - de linéarité! Where would you place heliports, seaplane bases, air bases? I see the very generic "aerodrome" (and I do remember the definition "any area of land of water, assigned, exclusively or not, to the operation of aeroplanes" from the days I studied air law to become a legal pilot) and then a lot of subcategories, possibly overlapping. The subcategories not always being clearly defined. Bàv :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that some airports call themselves "international airport of XXX" whilst having neither international flights nor big size... Tricky question. --Bouzinac (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's another difficulty, indeed. but at least it is limited to real "airports", often with commercial naming that comes and goes. "Weeze/Niederrhein" was a particularly sad example. My own modest homefield of EBZH is known to all and sundry as Kiewit Airfield, no issues there :) But seriously, I think any airport can rightfully style itself as "international" if all required facilities (customs + border security, I believe) are available. Antwerp Airport EBAW was in that situation when I was a young spotter: there were no scheduled services at all, but there were occasional charter flights, either cargo or passenger, long before the days of Schengen. So it was an international airport, yes yes. The more I think about it, the more I realise that it is all about facilities available. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title should be following that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment but well... very difficult to tell but I'd say Antwerp became international airport again since it has direct flights to LCY ;) --Bouzinac (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pas d'accord! The airport was (and remains!) "international" all the while that it offered all the facilities required for international operations. Nothing to do with the actual flights operated. But that's only my very personal humble opinion, of course. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan,
Are Société Industrielle et Technique pour l'Electricité and Société d'Électricité et de Mécanique the same thing?
Peter Horn User talk 20:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not qualified but feel inclined to say "no". At least there is no indication that they are one and the same. One might be an evolution from the other, perhaps after change in ownership or merger - I really couldn't say. Jan olieslagers (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked Who knows the trick for adding the poster's signature? Just add: {{Subst:Unsigned|Scarlet Eagle}} which results in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlet Eagle (talk • contribs) - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dank u zeer vriendelijk, meneer! Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graag gedaan. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user just correctly reverted some old vandalism at Tupolev PAK DA. I then decided to check the article's history to see if the vandal had damaged any other articles at the same time. But it wasn't a vandal who made the edit in question. I assume you were just making a point of some kind, but you've been around long enough to know that the correct term, rightly or wrongly, in all native varieties of English is "American". I don't care if you want to use "US'an" in talk pages and such (I actually find it funny), but making that kind of edit in articles could fall afoul of WP:POINT, and isn't a good idea. I'm not going to troll through your contributions in articlespace to find more such edits, but if there are any more, it might be good if you cleaned them up yourself. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are touching on a sore point, luckily you do so in a polite and somewhat restrained style. I do consider "US'an" the correct term - a person from Italy is an Italian, a person from Brazil is a Brazilian, what could a person from the US be called except a US'an? But I do have been around for a good while, so I will not go edit-warring, have no fear. I will not, as you suggest, change the correct "US'an" to the less correct "American" ("correct" of course being from my own point of view). If others change it, I will not protest, only suffer in silence. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wondered what you call someone from the UK? - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A good point! :) Usually "a Brit" - but those islanders do like to spread confusion, so they shouldn't complain if anybody gets confused. They usually don't, indeed. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was "very" restrained! The German style is US-Amerikaner, and the English-language equivalent, "US-American", is gaining prominence in the US, but very slowly. It may eventually become standard in the US, but I doubt it will be taken up by most other nations that already use "American"/"America". Another alternative is "United Statesian", but that is usually meant somewhat humorously. Some Brits on Wikipedia do use "USian" on talk pages, and I'll usually reciprocate with "UKian". - BilCat (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that you take the matter with some distance, and with a bit of humour, too. Much appreciated! "US-American" is a compromise that I could well live with, I think. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't calls Scots, Irish or Welsh "Brits"... - Ahunt (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting ever deeper into folklore :) No indeed, I surely wouldn't! If there's any chance of Gaelic people being around then it is better to remain very generic, "islanders" or so. (biting back cynical comment about the Stalinist alternative approach, also known as Animal Farm) Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call someone whose is English-Scottish-Welsh-Irish? An American! (Or perhaps Canadian) :) BilCat (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, so there seems to be a somewhat weak consensus at the Wikiproject page in favor of getting rid of the leading zeros on US runways, and combined with the pre-existing consensus I think it would be justifiable to undo the edits. But the number of pages that were affected is massive so it seems like some sort of automated tool like AWB would be ideal.

I still new enough here (at least in terms of edit count) that I don't think I could get permission to use it. Do you think we're in a position where we could reasonably make a request on that page, or should we seek a broader consensus first? TitanAndromeda 17:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there's one good question! All my appreciation and compliments for asking before acting! Allow me to suggest you ask the same question (if you didn't already :) ) to some of the even more experienced contributors: @Ahunt is certainly one, @Steelpillow is another name that comes to my mind. Myself have only worked on detail changes to articles, I have never even considered mass operations; far less have I ever initiated one. Still, I think the present case does justify application of mass update, without gathering more support; but I do not consider myself an authority in this field - like in many ;) Sorry for not speaking out clearer. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response! Ahunt seems to come to your page frequently so hopefully they won't mind if I ping them here.

Ahunt, see this discussion for full context; basically, Jan and I are wondering if it would be appropriate to make a request at WP:AWB for someone to revert a bunch of leading zeros that were recently (and in our opinion, incorrectly) added to US airport runway numbers. I think the fact that it went against a longstanding consensus and is against FAA practice would justify reverting, and I would have done it myself were it not for the sheer volume of edits that were made. Consensus at the discussion I linked to seems weak due to low participation, so I was hoping I could get your read on whether requesting AWB would go over well, or if we should start an RfC or something of the like to get more input. Thanks for any help you can give us! TitanAndromeda 17:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Given the details of the issue I would say go ahead and just do it. One word of caution though: make sure you just hit US airports as in other countries, like here in Canada, we use those zeros on our runways, written and spoken! - Ahunt (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam, I fully subscribe that. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit here, you might want to look at Talk:Hawker Sea Fury#Plural of "Fury". Or not. BilCat (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, thanks, that makes for some funny and interesting reading. Like already stated somewhere in that discussion, I also think it may well be one more discrepancy between European, i.e. British, and North American English. Knowing that this is a delicate point, I would not have acted if there were nothing else; but since I was editing the s/driver/driven/ anyway, I simply could not leave "Furys" as it stood. Best! Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and that's why I added the "Or not"! I just wanted to give you the opportunity to add your own comments if you wanted too. BilCat (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this statement:

"As of 2020, the increase of guidelines, "quality" criteria, civil administration and what not has been much frustrating my motivation for this project. Particularly, the repeated rejection of well-meant efforts of article creation has made me give up any ambition to repeat or continue them. Where has gone the original spirit of "plant a seed, see the growth, encourage sun and rain, assist as needed"? At best, I'll be working on existing articles, but I am much less "hot" than I used to be. A horrible pity, that such a glorious project as this WP is ruined by civil servants who can do nothing better than to tick the boxes on their forms, and refute honest efforts accordingly."

One cannot but agree with the statement you made and I've felt the exact same feelings as a Wikipedian across the years. Congrats. Aarfrunzindin (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...that one is specifically a main-page-appearance eligibility issue. WP:OTD doesn't have hard guidelines on 'how much of an article needs to be cited', and I personally prefer a pretty low reading, but I've ran into enough people disputing a low reading that I know running an article of that length with that much unreferenced text is going to get complaints. I've personally cited unreffed text in a lot of those cases, but couldn't in this one. I've decided to just remove the article from eligibility instead. Vaticidalprophet 21:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from MalaMrvica,

My last edit about Junkers G.38 was reverted back by You - Junkers G.38 engines Junkers L88 and L8a are petrol/gasoline engines, and their roots can be traced down to Junkers L1 (four stroke, petrol/gasoline engine).

Later, Junker G.38 received Junkers 204 diesel engines.

So, can You please undo your changes? Again, L88 and L8a are gasoline/petrol engines.

Thanks,

MalaMrvica — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalaMrvica (talk • contribs) 10:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. Reverted. Thanks for discussing in politeness! Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jan olieslagers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Belgian Railway Line 48, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jan olieslagers. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Belgian Railway Line 48".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As if I cared any longer. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, former and latter are comparatives, to use when distinguishing between two entities. If there are more than two entities, then we have first and last. You may have seen native speakers using them wrongly, but that is not a standard for Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairey_Aviation_Company&diff=prev&oldid=1224009158 Honestly, if I were editing a foreign-language wiki I should think twice before reverting a conscientious native speaker. Spicemix (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I hurt your feelings, @Spicemix. And excuse me for sticking to my point: [quote from]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/latter#English : Relating to or being the second of two items. [/quote] Perhaps we are seeing one more difference between English (European) English versus the North-American variant? From an equally conscientious near-native speaker of British English :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how profound, almost sacred,the ensueing silence... Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan olieslagers. I have suppressed your email address from the page history of User talk:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered as a courtesy because it seemed that you wanted to keep it private. For future reference, the best way to accept emails from other Wikipedia editors without exposing it publicly is to go to your user preferences, and under the "User profile" tab, you'll find the section "Email options", where you can update your email address. Setting your email address there will enable other editors to use the Special:EmailUser tool to email you. Other editors won't see your email address unless you choose to reply to the email. For more information, see Wikipedia:Emailing users. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you, much appreciated, many thanks! Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]