The Viking Coin
		For all the work on the Vikings article so far! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! :-) Thanks for the credits!

Here on Wikipedia one can sometimes be in doubt, if anyone reads or appreciates your contributions. I contribute mainly because its fun, but appreciations are always great, thanks again! RhinoMind (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I believe you deserve this for your great edits on Vikings! Original European (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot :-) RhinoMind (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For the effort you put into getting the Aarhus article to GA! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That means home-made pizza, salad and a nice local brew for me tonight! :-D RhinoMind (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your excellent work improving Wikipedia's coverage of adventure playgrounds! Mr leroy playpus (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr leroy playpus. They are certainly special places. I think you have contributed much more than me though. RhinoMind (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gribskov
Thank you, Danish traveller, for quality articles in collaboration such as Aarhus, for Gribskov and Botum Sakor National Park, for adding references, also in Danish, and revamping, for your general thoughts on editing, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thank you Gerda Arendt. It is heart-warming that other people are finding my contributions inspiring. I have felt, that many articles on very interesting (and some very important) issues needed improvements and a much broader audience. I am happy that my work is recognized! But perhaps best of all, it has been fun and very rewarding to write it. I have learned a lot myself.

RhinoMind (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making me happier! I have childhood vacation memories of Gribskov ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 955 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Great :-) Since then, I have been active on WikiVoyage, a sister project to Wikipedia. I have written most of the article there on Aarhus and supplied information on the general Denmark article as well. You said you have been to Denmark (and Gribskov) as a child, so I thought you should know. I am quite proud of how the Aarhus article turned out and am thinking of writing a real paper-guide in the future. RhinoMind (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-). I'll take it that you read my WikiVoyage guide? RhinoMind (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thank you Gerda. Among the changes, I have noted that Aarhus is now attracting more travellers and the Wikivoyage article is growing in readership. I take that as a sign it has become a useful article. Last year, NDR was here to film a feature culture and traveller's guide for German TV. I saw their film crew and talked to some of them :-) Nice. I think the city is benefiting from a more diverse and international street life now. The city has definitely become better and better and more interesting to live in. Thanks again for your appreciation. RhinoMind (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any request on which subject to add or improve, you are most welcome to post here on my TalkPage. RhinoMind (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhinoMind! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gellerup may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Langdalen.jpg|framed|right|The scenic valley of Langdalen on a summers day (2013)]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RhinoMind, I have done some editing on Gellerup, and the article is far from done. Problems were, as I noted in my edit summaries, to be found in tone (unencyclopedic), language (not correct English), and references (unreliable sources). Taken as a whole, the article devoted way too much attention to relatively small details and did so often in non-neutral language. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies. I am close to reporting your editing as vandalism.

I could have ignored you and/or reported you. You have already destroyed quite a bit of my work and contribution and now I am wasting my precious time, trying to explain why I find your actions aggressive and destructive. This is an investment for me, because I hope I can make myself clear on this, so you will start contributing and helping, rather than eliminate and destroy in the future. For me and every other Wiki-contributor.

Here is my elaborate response to your so-called "editings":

Yes, the article is "far from done". If you - like me - would like to see more useful information on the page, you might as well start contributing instead of erasing. It's that easy.

Well you are not required to have a librarians education on encyclopediac tone, to make helpful contributions at wikipedia. Everyone knows that and from what little you have written in the article, I can tell that you know it just as well. Some of the information you have replaced, had much more depth and were closer to reality, than what you have put in. Your replacements have made the article less informative and clouds important (mostly historical facts) about the subject at hand. If you were the helpful contributing kind, you could at least have made your replacements equally informative, as the original text. If you are displeased with something, change that for the better and do not erase it or replace it with something that is obviously bad. This should be common knowledge.

Now if you have discovered incorrect English, then your task at hand is very straight forward: correct it. It should be very easy. What you have done is to erase entire sections. Thats just wrong.

One more word on incorrect English: In articles from non-English cultures, where translations from other languages is required and not many sources in English exists, there will often be cases of incorrect English (The article on 'Gellerup' is in this category). To erase and disqualify any text on the basis of using incorrect English, is in these cases very extreme and a quite destructive act in many ways. Think about this and dont do it again.

You have some point here, and that is why I will not promptly report you as a vandal. That being said, your editing unfortunately shows me, that you dont know what you are talking about here.

First of all you have erased almost all external links, which is obviously not references.

Secondly you have erased more than 30 references and your selection shows me clearly, that you haven't to bothered to read them and hence evaluate their worth. Your actions are just destructive and on the edge of vandalism. Not helpful at all.

Thirdly I can see that you doesn't care much about references anyway. Several of the references clearly needs a syntax editing to present themselves correctly. You could have done that. Several of the references are duplicates and it calls for an obvious pruning. You could have done that.

Fourth. Some of the text might have needed better references, but that does not mean that erasing the text is of any help. As a first step you could have inserted "citation needed" signs. Or even better: you could have looked for and researched adequate references yourself! There was nothing in the text, that had any economical or promotional value for anyone, so to judge it as untrue or misleading and erasing it because of a (minor) lack of proper references, is just an aggressive act on the edge of censorship or unjust grading. Not helpful at all.

The reason why some of the text (not much) called for better references is obviously that - as you recognize yourself - the article is unfinished. If you cared to click and read the history section of the article in the top right corner, you could have seen that I added a rich text on top of a rather poor text no more than 4-5 days ago! So to judge and erase with the eagerness you have demonstrated, cannot be interpreted as anything else than aggressive. How can it be helpful to anyone?

It is not for you to judge, what is a small detail or not. Much of what you have erased was maybe a 'small detail' to you (and therefore ok to erase?), but it was not a small detail to me and it have not been to the many people writing the references I have cited. Even if you can find other people agreeing with you, the text was presented in a way, so it was very easy to skip sections that the reader found uninteresting. And if you dont think so, again: You could have done some work on the text. In this case to present the text in a better way, instead of erasing it.

About non-neutral language. No I dont agree with you. Ok maybe in a few places I could be persuaded, but in no way "often". Almost every word I wrote, could be traced to the references I cited or Wikipedia articles about adjoining subjects. I put quite a bit of effort in it actually, so it was all on very solid ground. And in the very few cases, where you could argue for non-neutral language use, you could just have replaced the words (or erased them). Its very simple and straightforward, but instead you erased entire sections of the text!

About judging whether a word is neutral or not: It can in fact be difficult to judge on that and if you are careless and too quick, you might in fact judge very wrong. Let me give an example from the text you erased. Take the word 'scenic' (like in "a scenic view"). This word has a positive and some would say promotional value at first sight. And yes that is often how it is used in everyday conversations. But if you stop and care to think about it for a minute, the word also has a descriptive meaning to it, making it a necessity for describing a landscape, as in my case. So how will you know if it is used in a promotional or a descriptive, informative way? Well from the context obviously. Again your actions shows, that you haven't cared to read or think before you erased.

Now that was a lot of text! But I did it for a reason. If you have forgot, scroll back up and read my introduction. I hope you have learned something?

Thanks for your note on my talk page :-) Yes, I can read Danish a bit; I saw there was a Danish article and linked them together on "Wikidata"; look at the bottom of the sidebar on the left under "languages /andre sprog" and you will see the other article linked. We can't use other Wikipedia articles as references, but when they are on the same topic, we link them together like that.

I actually looked at that article because you posted a copy of the above on Drmies' talk page and I saw you had then moved on to create a new article and had a look at it; I am active at WP:Pages needing translation into English and often clean up the English on articles created as translations.

I haven't looked in detail at Gellerup - I would need to check the references - but it does seem to me as if you have too much detail there. Remember, there is a difference between an ancyclopaedia article and an essay; we just summarise what others have said about the topic, rather than interpreting or drawing wider conclusions (the reader can always follow links to our articles on ghettos, immigration, etc.) And we don't serve as an up-to-date directory of things like leisure offerings; the reader can find out about those in detail more easily and accurately from the external links or other off-wiki means, we could never keep listings up to date on every page. So I think I see what you were trying to do but that you may have lost sight of the nature of Wikipedia, but I haven't looked at it closely yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I will have a look at that WP:Pages needing translation into English. As said I am 1 week old on WP and it can be very confusing, when you dont have all day to read your way through the helps and explanations, so thank you again.

Translations If you care to know, a major reason for my to sign up on WP was the need I felt for English pages based on other languages sources. If you only draw info from English sources to the English Wiki it will in time close in on itself and become rather anaemic. Since English is now an internationally preferred language even between two non-English cultures it is vital that WP can draw from non-English languages in the future even if English culture persons dont care.

Gellerup Yes, I was quite shocked when Drmies came along, but I think I have cooled down a bit now. I can see some of the points, as you also mentions them. But it was more the way the editing was executed and the carelessness with which it was done, that angered me. Useful and important text was erased (as well as references), instead of rewriting it or placing it right. And the text that was written as a substitute, was low quality. The reason I mentioned social activities and elaborated on the recreational leisure options, was because The Gellerup Plan is categorized as a ghetto. The lack of leisure activities for young people in many ghettos, is recognized as huge problem, and the act of introducing them as an important vehicle for progress. In that context, I felt it was important information. Was I wrong or right? Another minor reason is that associations as a phenomena, is extremely important in understanding everyday life in Denmark. Maybe I should do an article on that later on. Anyway, I felt I would catch up on this discussion on Gellerup here, since you mentioned it, but I believe it is best to keep it to the Gellerup page in the future. And you are very welcome to join in on it of course! I dont see it as a beef between me and Drmies, but as a more general discussion. Ok, enough of this discussion here.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hasle Hills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hasle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm A.amitkumar. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Gellerup, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  A m i t  웃   15:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oudemansiella mucida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating The Historical Museum of Northern Jutland, RhinoMind!

Wikipedia editor Jennie Matthews 97 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good article!

To reply, leave a comment on Jennie Matthews 97's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

:-) glad someone read it. Thanks a lot. And now Im tired...ZZZzzzzz ~(01:01 here) RhinoMind (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vikings may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Vatnsdalur]]. The valley is situated in [[Austur-Húnavatnssýsla]], Iceland.<ref name=Jasmine/><ref>[I)ór Magnússon: ''Bátkumlió í Vatnsdal'', Arbók hies íslenzka fornleifafélags (1966), 1-32</ref><ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Vikings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mustard, Coinage, Barrow and Sven

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Cambodia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Concession

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vendsyssel Historical Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bitter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've noticed that the discussion on the talk page has degenerated to a debate over the meaning of the term. To avoid any continuation of this argument, I've proposed that we merge those two articles under the name "Vikings" and address the debate over the proper meaning by creating a new page about the raiders/traders/explorers under a name such as "Viking (activity)" or "Viking (pirate)". If this is acceptable to you (or if you have concerns over this being implemented), please weigh in on the issue, as it is difficult to establish a consensus with only two people involved. Thank you, MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a more formal vote going on at the bottom of the Vikings talk page. Your vote would be appreciated. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhinoMind and thank you for your hard work on this article. Many of your edits show poor English and I don't mind tidying up after you. Can you at least make sure you show references for anything you add, and that you do not mark non-minor edits as minor? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Yes, I do not excel in some of the grammatics (were, was fx.), but as content is more important I was hoping for good hearted people like you to improve the texts at some point, so thanks a lot. However you erase important information at times and makes unneeded changes to the text. While we are at it, I have had problems learning how the British use "commas". Do you happen to know of any place (hopefully on-line), that explains more on this? In the Danish language its a mess.

From the way you express your concerns, I take it that you are British? :-) So...to get your message completely, I have to ask directly: What is in need of referencing? Which edits have I wrongly categorized as minor? Just examples, if a full list is too overwhelming. Cheers RhinoMind (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am Scottish. This was not a minor edit, and this needs a source. --John (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have supplied some refs to the seafood section now. Explanation: I was reading up on the issue in the Roesdahl book and made the false assumption, that the whole section referred to this source already. It's corrected now. I don't understand how this can be anything other than a minor edit? No new info, no deleted info, no change to the wording, not much really. Have to check what defines a "minor edit" I guess. RhinoMind (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Minor edit may be of interest. --John (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you're right, that image format was no big deal. This is a better example of a non-minor edit you marked as minor. --John (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is quite a nice source I found on comma use in English. Incidentally we don't add a full stop in dates, so it is 23 June, not 23. June. --John (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! The absence of the full stop in dates surprises me. I used to write dates (in English) like 23rd of June, 23rd June or June 23rd, but I has been repeatedly corrected to write it 23. June. I hope your information is the right one then? RhinoMind (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you can trust me. See WP:MOSDATE if you doubt me. 23. June is never right in English, though it is in German and some other languages. --John (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhinoMind. Thank you for your recent edits on Aarhus and for all the other work you have contributed over the past year to the article and to other articles about Aarhus and the surrounding area (both in English and Danish). It's extremely useful to have someone on the spot who is able to ensure our additions do not contain any errors. We are currently trying to improve this article up to GA standard. Together with our previous work on Copenhagen, Aalborg, Esbjerg and Odense, it will bring Denmark's five largest cities (based essentially on urban area population) up to GA standard. Over the medium term, we would also like to cover the next five: Randers, Kolding, Horsens, Vejle and Roskilde. Please let me know if there are any topics in the Aarhus article which still need to be added or expanded. (Maybe some items in the Danish version should be taken into consideration.) I see there is now quite a bit of duplication in the text (especially in the Culture section) but I'll sort this out later once all the sections are more or less complete. The main problem is still in-line referencing, especially on Politics and administration and on Economy which I'll try to tackle soon.--Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Hi and thanks for the encouraging words! My main motives has been the disappointment with the previous very poor or superficial articles, to learn WP-ing, to get an overview of my own country and hometown and maybe most importantly: to have fun! I have inserted various expansion-tags in the Aarhus article now and have described things I believe needs to be added. A specific topic I would suggest to be improved upon, is the bewildering number of separate articles on various neighbourhoods and boroughs in Aarhus. first they need to describe the geography much better and how these areas are defined. Secondly I think many of these pages could perhaps be merged. I would not rely much in the Danish WP, it has a great deal of unsourced info, the information is not well-balanced with regard to importance and some of the articles has original research. When the English WP articles are improved, the Danish WP articles will follow I am sure. That being said, I think the English WP could benefit greatly from using Danish sources. I know that English sources is preferred of course, but a lot of information is only available in other languages. I fact I see this as an important step to take in the future for the English WP in general to avoid anaemic articles, that does not represent the reality of its topics. RhinoMind (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reactions and your interesting suggestions. Perhaps we should move this discussion to the article's talk page? You are absolutely right that many of the English wiki articles rely solely on English-language sources and that Danish sources need to be used much more. Unfortunately there are only three or four of us who have a good knowledge of Danish and so most of the other active editors rely on English (or sometimes garbled Google translations!). As you will see from my own work, though, I very frequently use Danish sources but if good English sources exist, I use them too as they are useful for the English-speaking readership. On your expansion tags, the references I have been able to find on the Aarhus Å Valley seem to refer to the section west of Brabrand Sø. So maybe you are referring to Brabrand Dalen? In any case, I see there's quite a bit of geological background on both in the aritcle in Den Store Danske on Århus Kommune; I'll try to work it in. Maybe you have some other useful sources? We haven't tackled media yet but your suggestions are useful. As you know the area well, you might like to have a go at sorting out some of the problems you mention with the districts and neighbourhoods. And lastly, as you have written so much about Gellerup and the immigration problems, perhaps you could add a bit more about it all under demographics, preferably backup by by statistics and/or studies. I know Gellerup well and recognize it is one of the boiling points in regard to the ethnic problems in Denmark -- but it also has much to offer on the positive side with the bazar and the immigrant community. Don't worry about upsetting the article with your additions. If there are problems with the prose or references, we'll be able to sort them out. It's great to know you are taking an interest.--Ipigott (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Hi. on the talk page? Yeah sure, posting the suggestions on the talk page would probably be more constructive, and give more exposure.

on topography Brabranddalen is just a part of Aarhus Ådal. As your good link also shows (in part), Jeksendalen is just southwest of Brabranddalen (Jeksendalen is a very beautiful area btw and needs its own page in time). Aarhus Ådal was created as a tunnel valley when the ice receeded and now the Aarhus river flows along the bottom of it. I think Geus is the most credible and serious source on geology in Denmark, perhaps you can find even more interesting sources if you google the name somehow?

on Gellerup Oh thanks for this info. Personally I believe that 50-60 % of the problems with immigrants in Gellerup are caused by the Danish media. They have managed to strike fear in a lot of people that have never even been close to this area. Of course it is important to cover the problems - and I am not too confident with Gellerup myself -, but with so much attention you also need to give a decent picture of the area as a whole and they haven't done that. Actually I haven't much respect for the Danish media and have stopped taken them serious 8-10 years ago. Their information is very biased, they are not constructive in their approach to the world and they do not give a good idea of what is going on, neither in the world not here at home. Many important (and non-political) issues have not even been covered at all. Ok, ill save my anger for another debate :-) With regard to credible sources, I was also interested in putting some up, but immigration statistics are not that high on my to-do/interest list, but I see what I can do. Let me say though, that I've had some bad experiences for adding material on the cultural/political/social clashes based on Gellerup, so I turned my attention to the other aspects of the neighbourhood and that was better received. One small (but important) thing I have added, but which got deleted, was that almost all of the immigrant come from conflict zones. I did not conclude anything from this, as that could be original research, but I think its important to know. RhinoMind (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting your suggestions on the talk page. I hope I will not be the only one to follow them up! As for Gellerup, you may be right about the media but the problem is not specific to Denmark. You'll find even stronger media criticism of the immigrant population/ghettos in the Netherlands, France and Britain (to name just a few). In my opinion, one of the main problems is general reluctance in Denmark to sign on people with foreign sounding names, particularly Arabs, Kurds and Indians/Pakistanis. If they all changed their names to Hansen and Jensen, the problem would no doubt be solved. Anyway, the immigrant community in Gellerup mainly consists of extremely friendly, welcoming people, as you will know if you've visited the Bazar. As for conflict zones, with the recent turmoil in North Africa, the Middle East and Pakistan, are there any areas which are not conflict zones?--Ipigott (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your latest contributions. I am however a little concerned about the red links you have included in the list of notable people, at least one of whom is not even in the Danish wiki. I'll see if I have time to write short articles on them tomorrow, otherwise they will have to be deleted. If and when there are articles about them in English, they could be added again if the list of notables is not too long (cf Copenhagen).--Ipigott (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Hi Ipigott!

I am glad when other people are fond of what I contribute and even reads it! :-) Overall though, I believe the other sections are more important to finish first, as they define the framework of the Aarhus artice and adding info like this could be done later. I am sure you have the same priorities? I just stumbled acroos some people, and made sure to add them, while I remembered. This was the background for my additions.

Notable people You can removed the wiki-linkage, if you dont like them being red, but I have documented the notability of the writers in the refs. By "one of them" you probably mean Bent Faurby? Assuming that, his notability is probably based more on his number of books and perhaps not so much on his artistic talents and contributions as a whole. This is basically guesswork and he could have influenced the children's and youth literature greatly, I don't know. I will have to study him more. In Denmark children's and youth literature is generally highly respected and accepted as a serious literary genre, with its own criteria and qualities. Whatever his artistic contributions, I am not sure you can delete him, not even if he hasn't a Danish wiki page of his own. WP is based on notability and his notability is documented. Tage Skou-Hansen has definitely contributed artistically and is by far the most notable and noteworthy of the two.

In relation to notable people, I wasn't sure if should add Lene Kaaberbøl fx. I mean Malling and Beder (often considered the same town) is strictly speaking not a district or borough of Aarhus, but a suburb in the countryside. Maybe she should be moved to Beder then? I mention her as an example, becasue I might add other people later that is/were from suburbs to Aarhus, so I think it is important to know how we define "Notable people" on WP.

Besides, Some of the people I added was not born in Aarhus, but spend their careers in Aarhus. Again I am unsure which criteria "Notabe people" has?

Please post you thoughts and comments below.

RhinoMind (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just got this info from the Malling page: Malling lies under the jurisdiction of Aarhus and is therefore under direct political govern from Aarhus City Hall. Beder and Malling is basically the same town. RhinoMind (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to your comment, I have now substituted Bent Faurby with Thorkild Bjørnvig. TB is very notable. If BF turns out to be important we can - as you points out - add him later on. I am not forgetting your warning of long lists, however important the content might be! :-) RhinoMind (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that there are more important items in the article than the list of notable people. I also know that children's literature is highly regarded in Denmark (and indeed in the other Sandinavian countries). My comments were more on the procedural side. While it certainly OK to include red links in lists provided there is a reference, it is expected that in an article on an important city like Aarhus, the links should all be blue - particularly if we are aspiring to GA. There is of course another option: to compile a List of people from Aarhus along the lines of List of people from Oldham or List of people connected to Gothenburg. This would cater for a longer list and could be a basis for reducing the length of the (already long) list of notables in the Aarhus article. It's certainly in order to include people who have a strong attachment to Aalborg in addition to those born there. I'll now put together a short article on Bent Faurby.--Ipigott (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I just feel it is important for me to add, that when I/someone inserts red links or expand-templates, it is meant as a constructive way to present concrete to-do lists. It is not a grumpy critique or out of anger or anything. The GA ambitions can only be attained through such honest to-do lists and I also think it is important to remember, that the GA status would probably not be attained overnight. It must be thought of as a long term goal. and even if/when the article attains GA status, the status may be challenged and the article could require changes. Because the city changes (very rapidly these years) and because there might be important issues, that has been ignored somehow. RhinoMind (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of articles today to change the red links to blue and am confident we can reach GA within a couple of weeks. Anything you can do to help would be greatly appreciated.--Ipigott (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhinoMind, referring to the Vikings page, I hope your ability to compromise is greater than your Wikipedia name suggests. Are you a moderator/facilitator in Wikipedia? If you are, I have a couple of questions for you. Firstly, what is the upper limit on the use of colons to indent consecutive comments in an article's talk page (clearly there must be an upper limit or everything ends up squashed to the righthand side))? Reply on my talk page if you can. Wikifiveoh (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Wikifiveoh: If you had followed the link I've given you a couple of times (Wikipedia:Indentation) you would have known the answer to that question (see the section about Outdenting). There's is no official rule regarding the number of colons, but a general rule of thumb followed by most editors is to outdent when the empty space to the left is about one third of the width of their screen. Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dude. Wikifiveoh (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Im back. As Thomas said. Btw. what I corrected on the Viking page was not about my personal views. RhinoMind (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would note here that I found it rather odd that another account (Thomas.W) should answer a private question placed here on the talk page of this one (RhinoMind). This in itself is not a huge concern but is inappropriate Wikipedia behaviour in my opinion. Wikifiveoh (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Wikifiveoh: It's not the least inappropriate, and happens all the time, especially on the talk page of editors who aren't active every day of the week, and because of that can't answer questions quickly themselves. How's your top secret investigation through mysterious hitherto unknown channels going, BTW? I still expect a full and unreserved apology for your totally baseless accusations, and RhinoMind deserves an apology too. Thomas.W ^talk 12:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W, Dude, try bridge jumping. I say no more here. Wikifiveoh (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realise that you've made a big fool of yourself. Thomas.W ^talk 13:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your suggestion, I've added a few lines under this heading but I have unfortunately found very little in the way of achievement. Maybe you can help, either by adding directly to the article or providing me with pertinent sources.--Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipi. I added the section inspired by the Copenhagen article and because I know it is a serious issue for Denmark and Aarhus not the least. I do not have any overview of current or completed initiatives, but I have a few ideas of headlines that could be followed up.:

• CO-neutrality
• Waste mangement
• Recycling
  • recycling centres
  • recycling of household garbage
  • industrial recycling
• Water
  • Drinking Water. Safeguarding, treatment, etc..
  • Water treatment
  • Dealing with the increasing precipitation (Egå Engsø, rainwater reservoirs)
• Buildings
  • Implementation of environmentally friendly technologies and construction standards. (Electricity, heat, water treatment)
• Traffic.

I will see if I can find good startingpoints.

RhinoMind (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found a solid fix-point here: Go Green With Aarhus. English available. More later. RhinoMind (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On CO2 neutrality. An offshore wind turbine farm has been planned, financed and accepted for construction at Mejl Flak in the Bay of Aarhus. RhinoMind (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your feedback on this. I would however really appreciate information about the specific progress Aarhus has made on the issue over the past few years. Please feel free to add to the section if you have sources.--Ipigott (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving this discussion to the Aarhus page RhinoMind (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhino. Thanks for participating in this. Unfortunately we seem to have run into an edit conflict. I think the problem was simply the word "sphere" which I changed to sector. If you want to reinsert your edit, then it would need to be modified to something like: "Aarhus is home to several important libraries which play an active role in the city's cultural life." Then you will need to include an appropriate reference. But I think things are now OK as they stand.--Ipigott (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Its ok, I just couldn't find a substitutive word for "sphere" and thought I could rephrase the whole thing. That the libraries take an active role in the cultural life of the city is explained later in the paragraph, so your version is fine for me. No problem. RhinoMind (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to thank you, Rhino, for all the effort you have put into this article, especially over the past few days. As you have pointed out, English-language sources sometimes present an incorrect view of the situation. Thanks to locals like you, we are able to present a more factual picture. Thanks also for your offer to take photographs. I'll let you know if I notice any special requirements. I hope you'll be around to help us with our future coverage of Kolding and Randers.--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for the appreciation! Writing on WP can be a bit lonely and one rarely knows, if what you do is appreciated, so really great with some feedback. Things are going really fast here in Aarhus these years, so even using Danish refs is not always enough even. One reason for me to be engaged in the page, is to learn something myself! Just the organizational structure of the INCUBA Park and Aarhus University Hospital, was a mystery to me until yesterday. These are just examples. About other projects: I do not make serious promises on WP, since I am here mostly here to have fun and when time permits. I wouldn't ruin that and I wouldn't feel good about making promises I cant keep neither. That is not a "no" of course :-) RhinoMind (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may wish to expand this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good work! I am not very knowledgeable about this particular period of Danish history, but I might have a go at it anyway. I know a few things here and there and there were actually several incidents in Aarhus, mainly initiated by the resistance movement. The City Hall was bombed by the Germans, ammunition depots blew up in the harbour and killed a great deal of people, incidents like that. Many cemeteries here have graves or memorial stones for such events or for resistance activists killed or deported to the KZ camps. Would probably be a good idea, if I read up on it. RhinoMind (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber:Oh thanks for mentioning this here Cas Liber!

I read the discussion on Template:Did you know nominations/Aarhus and would like to add that

• ...that the city of Aarhus (waterfront pictured) is the second-most populous city in Denmark?

is a better formulation, as I see it. The city of Aarhus is part of the larger East Jutland metropolitan area and using the vague formulation urban area makes it unclear what is meant exactly. Coincidentally both the city and the metropolitan area is second-most populous in the country. Unfortunately I couldnt figure out where to post this comment? Perhaps you could help?

At the same time I think the lede formulation in the article itself, could and should be more clear. Also in regard to "populous" or "size", as discussed on the DYK nomination thread for example. I will post this suggestion on the articles talk-page.

RhinoMind (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! i came across your great article on the Botum Sakor National Park. I noticed though, there are a few mistakes in the info-box

these: | location = Kampot and Kompong Som, Cambodia | nearest_city = Kampot

i get it straight, if you are fine with it. One suggestion: Sihanoukville is closer than Kampot and Krong Koh Kong is even closer, although it ain't much of a "city" - but neither is Kampot. So i chose Sihanoukville

Thanks for your attention and All The Best!!!

Wikirictor (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for dropping a few lines. Its a long time ago, but I think the cities was there before I came along. I only "revamped" the article on the backbones of a rather poor and outdated version. I think this might have slipped my attention.

There is still some things I would like to add to the article overall - in particular concerning the construction projects in the area -, but I haven't found the time and inspiration yet. Im happy to know, that the government of Cambodia has recently initiated a serious collaboration with some of the NGOs from the BSNP area. It is really happy news. On the downside, it seems the newly appointed Minister of the environment has accelerated the (maybe) corrupt collaborations with the Chinese companies. I haven't dived into this issue yet, but rumours has it, that its pretty bad news. Ok enough from me on this for now! RhinoMind (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

one addition: There exists at the moment only an article on Sihanoukville province, although editors dumped anything in it over the years. I am currently cleaning this up and in the process of creating a Sihanoukville (city) page, which should be up in a week or so. I am going to upate the link, when ready

CheersWikirictor (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikirictor: Hi always great with some quality articles. Are you sure that "Sihanoukville" is officially accepted in Cambodia and the name used in daily conversations there? I know that not everyone in Cambodia is too happy with Sihanouk or the royal family for that matter (to say the least). RhinoMind (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The Majority of the Cambodians use in common, every day conversation: Kompong Saom - actually the name of the old (before 1954) community. Officially it is called Preah Sihanouk (holy Sihanouk) with either the "Krong" (town, city) or "Khaet" (province) suffix. In respect to the country's history and the elite's bi- or multilingualism, it comes to no surprise, that Sihanouk himself - btw - came up with something a bit more - mundane. And - obviously - it is really necessary, as most Westerners here have great pains with the mastery of Khmer. English has by now become the dominant foreign language and Cambodians - esp. the young - have absorbed it and use it with great skill.
All the best!
Wikirictor (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good info there. While "ville" is French of course, but I have also heard that English has been adopted by most young people as the present international language of choice. And Cambodia has a "demographic bulge" of young people, as you probably know already? Same story in Vietnam I am told.

(I have a friend who lives in Cambodia now. He is Cambodian himself, but his and my family grew up together here in Europe. I must really pay a visit there someday, as I haven't actually been in the country yet.) RhinoMind (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ribe Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dano-Swedish war. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was intentional. RhinoMind (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your addition regarding the etymology of the paper's name. I couldn't immediately find any reliable sources to support it, and it looked like it could be original research. If you've got a reliable source to support the etymology, please feel free to restore it. Pburka (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: Hi and thank you for your concerns and interest. I'm Danish and I just explained what it means in Danish, that is all. No original research (or). I reckoned that the name looked weird for a non-Danish speaker, so I just put in a name-section on it. Do we need a source for basic translations? RhinoMind (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhinoMind. Firstly thank you for your work on Danish articles - it's important Wikipedia has a global perspective so what you do is great. I do similar stuff on German articles, and am also a member of WP:WikiProject Rivers, so was just doing some housekeeping here. The convention we follow is WP:NCRIVER. It's pretty flexible, but generally unless the sources use a regional convention (e.g. US: "Foo River" or UK: "River Foo"), where "River" is actually part of the proper name, we tend to just use the name of the river and put any disambiguation in brackets if it's needed. Hence Moselle, Rhine, Ruwer (river) and Inn (river). This is the usual convention for European rivers and, if you look at Category:Rivers of Denmark, also for Danish rivers, except that "River" has been used to disambiguate those that need it. However, this is not correct according to the convention - it should be "Foo (river)". However, very happy to discuss this further if the vast majority of sources on Danish rivers actually use "Foo River". Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved my reply and this discussion to the Aarhus (river) talk-page now. RhinoMind (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I do understand why you reverted my edits on Vikings and appreciate the note on my talk page. My editing was to try to clean up the dozens of CS1 errors that appear when unsupported parameters are used. The problem in this case arises because the Cite Paper template technically no longer exists. It was merged with the Cite Journal template in 2009 or so. When they were merged, the "university" parameter was deleted. The only direct solution would be to start a thread on the template talk page to alter the template. However, I also tried another edit on the Bernard Mees reference. I attempted to "trick" the template by making the university name part of the author's name. Take a look. If you don't like it, simply revert it. If it looks acceptable, you can do the same to the other problematic reference. Cheers. JimVC3 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JimVC3:Oh ok, I will try to post something on this template talk page I guess. For some reason the "department" parameter works and I can try to get around the problem by using that when possible. Thanks for your inputs on this "nerdy" issue :-). RhinoMind (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good luck with the template issue. Your fix using the "department" parameter was better than mine. It's a small issue, but that parameter actually does not refer to an academic department, but to a department within the journal (like a regular column, etc.), which is why it's part of the template. However, nothing precludes you using it as you did. Smart move! JimVC3 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry for this mistake I made. I will remember to include source when adding this kind of sad information. Palau (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Palau. I might have come across a bit brisk, but there was quite a few (unsourced) announcements from different users on the page and I posted a template-response on several User-pages to counter it. This left no place for politeness or personalized explanations; the sole intent was just to stop it effectively. I hope this issue hasn't dashed your interest in editing Wikipedia. RhinoMind (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moussaka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minced meat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this edit. I was wondering if you could explain what the problem was a little more so I could try and fix it. Quite often something that is obvious to one person is not to others. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yeah, I was really perplexed as to why the Copper Inuits was massacred? I guess they were in some kind of conflict with the Dene's or was it just for the "fun" of it? I just think it should be explained or touched. I cannot see any explanation on the Bloody Falls massacre page either. When a massacre takes place, it just calls for an explanation of sorts, that's all. RhinoMind (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been one of those things both groups always did. I tried to give some context, here, can you take a look and see if that is OK. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This certainly explains a few things and its great with the reference you supplied. I haven't read it all yet, but it appears to be a murky subject altogether. I would really like to know more about it, but if there isn't any sources available to shed light on it, I guess it is just not possible. Thanks for looking into this Uqaqtuq! RhinoMind (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did such a good job on Gribskov, I wonder whether you would be interested in expanding Store Dyrehave along the same lines now that it has been included in the Unesco Par Force Landscape site?--Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the compliment Ipigott. I noticed the new page you created and also scanned Wikicommons for images connected to Store Dyrehave. There was only 2 (!) images up, but I made a commons-category anyway. I don't know much about Store Dyrehave (have never even been there), but I could perhaps read up on things from Danish sources and contribute. I could also supply an infobox and other structural stuff. It appears though, that User:Ramblersen is becoming quite active on the English Wikipedia and I would like to see what he has to offer. He has an interest in Zealandic sites I think and I "know" him vaguely from the Danish Wikipedia, so he will probably also supply info from Danish sources I guess.

Personally I think we would benefit from waiting a couple of months, for several reasons. Store Dyrehave is also included in the soon-to-be national park of Kongernes Nordsjælland. This implies that new and more accessible information on Store Dyrehave should be up on the internet in a few weeks. The UNESCO par force landscape is also very recent and more information should also be up regarding that aspect of the forest-area. RhinoMind (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramblersen has indeed been a strong contributor to the English wiki too and in fact he is the one who suggested I should write the article. He has also worked on expanding it himself. You are right that more information is likely to emerge in the coming months, especially with the exhibition planned at the Hunting and Forestry Museum in October. Jette Baagøe would appear to be a good source.--Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RhinoMind, I would like to improve the article on Aarhus and I have a few suggestions I hope we can collaborate on.

• Overall I would like to model the lead after San Francisco as I think it's concise and beautifully written. The overall structure for Aarhus is there but a bit more information could be added and the sections a bit more focused.

Well I don't know what changes exactly you wants to implement of course, but the idea is great in my opinion. RhinoMind (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The history paragraph in the lead is a bit disjointed. I think it would benefit from a more comprehensive, generalized description.

I had not been too engaged in the current history information in the article. A lot of stuff was added after the GA level was reached. I have no opinion about this issue. RhinoMind (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The 3rd paragraph in the lead is peppered with numbers related to size and growth which should probably be rolled into the 1st paragraph. It's a concern that the first paragraph can become too number-intensive or list-like but I do think it's a more appropriate place. Possibly wait to include it later in the article?

Yeah its good to move numbers from the lede, if it is overburdened, I agree. But numbers are (usually) very important, so please dont delete information. RhinoMind (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the two first history sections could benefit from a more concise narrative that focus more on explaining why the information is important and relating the information to the larger picture. I also think there's some information better suited for sub-articles, for example:
  "From the end of the 12th century, the streets of the old town were developed at the initiative of Peder Vognsen, who was bishop of Aarhus from 1192 until his death in 1204."
  

As an exception, I have written most of the first paragraph in the History section, so I know first hand, that the information is well-balanced and I think it is presented in a very good way :-) I don't know about the 2nd section, but your example with Peder Vognsen is allright (but you would need to mention he was bishop at least). Whatever you do, be very careful not to delete information. You can move it, present it differently, but be very careful about deletions. RhinoMind (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Districts and Boroughs section is IMO confusing but I'm not sure how to fix it.

Yes! Very confusing. As an Aarhus citizen I can attest that this issue is inherently confusing. There are several reasons for this. District, neighbourhood, quarter, etc are not well-defined structures. There might be some general consensus in the USA, in the UK or within other countries, but there is no global consensus. The meaning of these divisions can be very different from culture to culture. This is on top of general translation issues. Another reason is the history of Aarhus. Aarhus Municipality is administered by the Aarhus City Council. Therefore there is not always a clear line or division between the city of Aarhus and the municipality of Aarhus. In addition to this "mess", administrative districts change status and/or extent over time and even new ones might be added (Beder-Malling or Aarhus Ø for example). It has always been difficult to get proper solid up-to-date information on what actually comprise the city of Aarhus and how the postal districts are defined. Nevertheless, I have recently done some extensive back-ground work on the postal districts of (the city of) Aarhus, and although I am done now, I am not even sure it is finished or 100% correct. I have also worked on actually presenting the existing neighbourhoods as a first order fix. Most of my work has been on the Danish WP, but I have also dont quite a lot here on the English WP. I am not done yet, but I can see that the Danish sources you have found are the same as mine, they are really solid and if you wants to join in, please go ahead! I think it would be great. If you know of or find solid unambiguous sources of how the districts etc are currently defined, I hope you will share? RhinoMind (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an example of changes I consider appropriate for the second history section here. Inline citations for new information not yet included. Mainly I tried to put information in context and some tidbits that mostly cluttered the section was taken out. I hope you have feedback and/or ideas that can help in this great endeavor. Gardar Rurak (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gardar Rurak and thanks for writing about your plan and intentions. Let me start out by stating, that my main interest in the Aarhus article has been to put up information that describes this place in a balanced, useful and of course correct way and on top of that, to elevate the article to the current GA rating.

Now let me reminisce a little bit about the articles history. Aarhus received its GA rating after a collaboration with primarily Dr Blofeld and Ipigott. This means that the article structure is (was) Good, but with room for improvements such as more information and better prose for example. User:Anosmoman came along later on and he has made many deep and large contributions and changes as part of his plan to raise the article even further to an FA level. I issued a warning and initiated discussions with Anosmoman, because some of his changes was not improvements, there were tid bits of false information and it was important to shed some light on his overall plan with the page. We had a short (but important) discussion on Aarhus' talk-page, but I haven't followed up recently and Anosmoman has not been active on the age for a long time either for some reason. This all means that the articles current stage is somewhat disrupted. The structure is on its way to the FA standard, but some bits of information has been deleted and not every section is focussed enough and could benefit from more additions.

Seen in this light I think your inputs has potential.

I have commented on the issues you raise within your own post. I will not have much time to engage in projects like this in the coming weeks/months, so perhaps we should move the discussion to the TalkPage of the Aarhus article somehow? Other users might be curious and enthusiastic about it, so why hide it away here? RhinoMind (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the belated reply, I assumed you were on vacation. Status so far has mainly been adding a bit of information. I've been running through the sources to verify them and have moved to focus on creating sub-articles related to Aarhus and Jutland for the time being. In the article itself there are a few sections that could use some reworking with regards to prose but I feel the content in itself is quite good throughout. If I significantly rework any sections I plan to collect feedback from other contributors prior to submitting them which is where I hope you'd be of help. In a month or so I'll probably look for an experienced FA reviewer to look it over for obvious or glaring problems in order to collect a list of recommendations to post on the talk page. So... that's my plan. Gardar Rurak (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello stranger! I am on Vacation from WP.

I will only be contributing with the usual small, random and occasional edits.

RhinoMind (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Lisbjerg

added a link pointing to Awl

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted this on DYK here Template:Did you know nominations/Varaha Upanishad. You may like to review this as you had evinced interest on this subject. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 06:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for remembering this @Nvvchar:. I have never reviewed a DYK before, so I am not aware how to do it properly. I might have a few suggestions about more DYKs for Varaha Upanishad though and would like to share them. I feel that the current DYK info is perhaps a bit too general to by catchy on its own. There are so much else in this Upanishad that will make very interesting DYKs, so I have made a small list below:

• ... the X year old Varaha Upanishad is the first text to describe how the Om mantra washes away all sins and assures salvation?
• ... the X year old Varaha Upanishad is the first text to elaborately describe the concept of Brahman?
• ... the Yamas described in the Varaha Upanishad X years ago, closely matches the Ten Commandments from Christianity?

I have also posted a few questions on the Varha Upanishad TalkPage to shed some light on a few murky issues. RhinoMind (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings RhinoMind. Regarding your recent edits on Prana. Pranic theory is not original research. Prana is not in any way exclusive to hindu philosophy. Prana is utilized in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, New Age practices, etc and predates the modern notion of 'hinduism' (the Vratyas mentioned in the article are a non-vedic group). A more general term should be utilized. Pranic theory just means the worldview that posits the existence of prana. How is that in any way original research? If you have another generic term you would rather use please introduce it as 'hindu philosophy' is inaccurate. Also, the description of Pranayama was too specific and its citations too flimsy (internet articles). Using pranayama can be for nadi cleaning in many if not most traditions, but as is clearly demonstrated in the Eliade and Feuerstein references elsewhere in the article, pranayama was often used just to arrest respiration with no specific conceptions of energy work. Please let me know if you understand these points and why the listed items were altered. If you agree, please take the time to self revert or better defend your changes (especially as this page desperately needs to be cleaned up). I will also post this to the talk page if you'd prefer to respond there.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is to let you know that your subject category has been submitted to CfD here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 24#Streams. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are these Cultural centers in Denmark not organisations? Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for writing. I misread your change and I have now reverted myself. Sorry. RhinoMind (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback it is much appreciated. However, I do not need to use sources to justify changes made as Ireland is not British so the term British Isles is highly problematic see (British Isles Naming Dispute) for further sources etc. The term British Isles is purely politically (Political geography) in an effort to undermine Ireland as a Republic. British Isles is mainly used by British academics and its not recognized by the government of Ireland. Few other languages other than British English use the term.

British Isles is not neccessary the term usually used nowadays is Britain and Ireland, UK & Ireland and the Atlantic Archipelago, despite efforts to switch to a less politically biased term, some wiki editors continue to use a term associated with the 19th century. It is almost like calling the Democratic Republic of Congo as Zaire, which is utter nonsense as it does not reflect the times we live in. Again I appreciated you contacting me. Have a good day now.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

C.Th. Sørensen

added a link pointing to Royal Academy of Fine Arts

Kattegat

added a link pointing to Anholt

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aarhus Art Academy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Midtbyen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danes (Germanic tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been reposted on dyk after it was promoted to GA. You may like to review it again in this version.--Nvvchar. 06:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nvvchar for noticing me. The article has become quite good by now. Good cooperative work there. RhinoMind (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Risø DTU National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agro Food Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arla. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solid nitrogen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sublimation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhinoMind, I noticed that while you were improving the Solid nitrogen page you used the word "boyance". There is actually no such word in English. Perhaps you would like to use the word "buoy" instead of the word "float" that I put in. But in any case we can't use "boyance" there! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: Hi. Yes I saw you were reverting me on this issue. With "buoyance" is simply meant the "act of buoyancing", or to cut it out completely, what happens when the forces of buoyancy is acting on an object. I am not a native speaker of English, but I am a physicist and have always used it as a verb for describing the physical processes. It is different from the verb "float" that you provided originally. The floating state is an equilibrium state and is only reached when the forces of buoyancy has done their work on an object.

It may be that "buoy" is the right verb to use here, but I have not been able to find any proper definition of this word in any authoritative dictionary. It is a very common problem unfortunately. The writers of dictionaries and grammatical guides are very often scientifically illiterate.

I think it would be sad if all this degrades to a fruitless discussion of proper grammar and not how to solve the problem at hand in an efficient way. Are there other words we could use instead of "buoy" perhaps? I think I have described the problem very well from the physical perspective, so perhaps you have other ideas? The word "float" is ruled out as far as I understand this word.

Glad you engaged on my TalkPage. RhinoMind (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User @EdChem: has made a change which I am happy with. Do you think that the changes are accurate? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. yes it was ok. Yesterday I elaborated on his changes with some more info as well, but kept his wording. Thanks for raising this in the first place. RhinoMind (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that my suggestion was found to be accurate and appropriate.  :) EdChem (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danish television drama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lars Andersen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up: I've referred to your edits to Galileo (spacecraft) and Galileo Probe in a comment to a Plane Talking post about NASA reducing the importance of Galileo in light of Juno. Mark Hurd (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Markhurd: Hi and thanks for the notice. I am not completely sure I understand the cause of anger in the Plane Talking post, but I added much needed and neglected information when I edited and added to these pages some months ago. Prior to my edits the ref-ing was not satisfying and important observations and discoveries where left out. Not sure it was intentional, but I added them then anyway.

I acknowledge the importance of good quality Wikipedia articles on exactly subjects like these, because solid scientific information presented in an easily accessible and easily understandable form is severely lacking. As a scientist I feel very sad about this. This is not a way to preserve, revere and pass on importance knowledge and scientific legacies to humanity, the scientific community or the future. These bits of information needs to be easily available, complete, precise and properly sourced. I see none other than Wikipedia doing a better job unfortunately. The NASA PR pages are often a mess, not with a lot of faulty information, but neither complete nor properly sourced. If these matters are what the Plane Talking post is about, I think more people should write about it. Preferably in mass media. Society can not be so careless about preserving groundbreaking scientific knowledge. For about a million very good reasons.

RhinoMind (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now corrected and inserted some proper wiki-links to the Galileo Probe article on Wikipedia, especially the Atmosphere of Jupiter article, which was quite a mess. When an article is referring to the atmospheric-entry probe it should of course direct the reader to the Galileo Probe and not the general spacecraft article. RhinoMind (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Markhurd: Hi again. I would really like to bring to your attention (including the ongoing Plane Talking discussion), that several pieces of wrong information with an American patriotic slant has been inserted in a quite sophisticated way in the main spacecraft article recently. All the references to the German and international contributions has been deleted and the spacecraft is now described as an American spacecraft in the leed even. This is not supported by one of the main sources for the article, which claims it to be a NASA mission, operated by JPL and of an international nature, including the US, Germany and six unnamed nations.

The main source is [1] which was replaced by this source [2] in some key places. Both of them can not be right, but from a quick glance I cannot say which one is most credible. Both of them are personal space pages and this category has a sad reputation of some very wrong information in between ok or good material. The best solution will be to dig up root sources and use them instead of second hand oddities. For this reason I haven't changed or reverted anything yet in the article, but it is certainly interesting and possibly very disturbing.

RhinoMind (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danish cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquavit. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm startubg a new discussion at WP:CFD about the naming of river categories. Since you have participated in t least one of the recent discussions in the matterm you nay want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 11#Rivers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gamma-ray burst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wolf-Rayet. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danish School of Media and Journalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the QCD matter page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://nias.ku.dk/what-nias and other copyright web pages. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also found copyright violations in Traditional Cambodian medicine, where material was copied from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:858545/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Please be sure to make yourself thoroughly familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policy before you do any further editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Why didn't you just rewrite it?

In any case these are tiny snippets of text, that could easily have been rewritten, if needed at all. I find your approach extremely obstructive to WP contribution.

I suggest you take a look at yourself and ask if your activity here on Wikipedia is of any benefit to anyone? In my opinion you are destructive in your behavior and it is not something that WP needs in any dose. RhinoMind (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do sometimes re-write the prose instead of removing it, but there's sixty or more copyvio reports needing assessment each day, so there's simply not time to re-write them all. I see you have restored the copyright content. I am removing it again now and will do some revision deletion. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no, no. you must be kidding. Is this some kind of sick joke? Anyway, your actions in this case will of course not be tolerated. I will address the concrete cases of your obstructive actions on the proper pages. From your personal page I can see that you have a long history as a WP editor, and I can't believe you are doing this. Are you out of your mind? RhinoMind (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to our copyright policy, a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. Content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material at all. There's some additional reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The material you lastly deleted WAS written in my own words. However, I cannot, and should not, leave out INFORMATION drawn from a source or a reference. Your interpretations in this are crazy. I have moved this "discussion" to the Talk:Nordic Institute of Asian Studies and also Talk:Traditional Cambodian medicine, where the action is actually taking place. RhinoMind (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here to your posts on the article talk pages.

First point: Please see WP:Copyright violations. This is a Wikipedia policy page with legal ramifications. On the policy page, there's instructions as to what to do when copyright violations are discovered. All involve removal of the content. Nowhere does it say that the patrolling administrator is required to re-word the content.

Second point: Revision deletion is done under criterion RD1 of the deletion policy: blatant copyright violations that can be hidden without removing attribution of any non-infringing contributors. That's why you can't see the edit history of these two articles any more.

Third point: copyright violations were present in the material removed the second time from both articles. In the case of Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, the material you re-added was copied unaltered from the organization's website, in particular http://nias.ku.dk/what-nias. That's not okay. That's a copyright violation. In the case of Traditional Cambodian medicine: there's copyrightable creative content in the way the copied paragraph is structured, and substituting a few words does not remove the copyright violation. The content has to be re-written completely in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How could anyone believe you, and how could you possibly justify your wrongdoings, when the entire documentation has been deleted? Before I pour the boiling oil, I would like to know if you work for someone else or if you have started this mess on your own initiative? RhinoMind (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhinoMind.. I understand you want to improve the health content of cinnamon and other spice articles.

Here is how to edit.

1) Ask yourself a question. Like "what are the health effects of cinnamon?"

2) Go find sources that comply with WP:MEDRS (here, for example, are recent reviews about cinammon; many but not all of these should be OK, but please read MEDRS to see how we evaluate sources)

3) Read them, and figure out what the answers are. While you are doing that, keep track of what ideas are in most of the refs, which are in just a few, etc. Pay attention what the authors of the good sources sources say about how widely/strongly held a given answer is, which ones are weak, etc.

4) Summarize the answers you found, giving the most WEIGHT to the stongest/most-widely held answers, less to others, etc. per WP:NPOV). Cite the refs.

Anything you add needs to be actually supported by the ref cited.

Everything starts with good, strong sources. Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhinoMind - SuperHamster from Wikipedia Asian Month here. I took a look at your three submitted articles (Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, Amomum ovoideum, and Khmer sastra). Unfortunately I've had to decline two of them with the following concerns:

• Nordic Institute of Asian Studies: After the copyright cleanup, the article no longer meets the length requirement (300 words & 3,000 bytes)
• Amomum ovoideum: As a glance, I've noticed some direct copying and close paraphrasing this source and this source. The last sentence of the Amomum_ovoideum#Conservation section is one example. If you could take a closer look and help tighten it up, that would be great.

I will have a look at it, later in the week.Thank you for noting this. RhinoMind (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you've had some disagreement regarding copyright violations in the past couple weeks. Please let me know what I can do to help remedy the situation. Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources is a nice guide to what is and isn't allowed when sourcing material. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster: Thanks for noting and offering some help in this. I felt run over by an abusive administrator. It is difficult to discuss the issue at hand now, because the administrator deleted even the history-page information on the edits he/she found to violate what he claimed were copy-right issues. So you don't have a chance to look at it, it is gone now. The information in the deletions are needed for the articles, especially the information deleted on the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies page.

The administrator's interpretation of copy-right rules are way too narrow and impossible to work with. It would mean that editors couldn't use sources at all. A hopeless situation for any editor of course. I tried to raise my voice about the problems, but that just resulted in the deletion I mentioned and no engagement in any kind of explanation on his/her part. I find the behavior abusive. It helps nobody, it just creates anger, animosity and kills the spirit of contributing really, and for what? I don't have all the time in the world, so I haven't yet taken the issue to a higher level, but I intend to, especially if I find fellow editors affected by the administrators behavior. Is there a place where we can complain about these things? I would like to know, maybe I am not alone. RhinoMind (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, This is Addis Wang from Wikipedia Asian Month. I have judged your articles here and some of your articles can be improved in order to meet the minimum 4 accepted articles requirement. Please considering to improve them before the end of 2016 and let me know. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia Asian Month! Best, --AddisWang (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

..but I would appreciate an answer to a (simple) question at the talk-page of Danish Realm. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RhinoMind, you responded positively to my small edit of your Riis Skov article, so I have taken the liberty of starting to work through your other articles, starting today with "New Forests of Aarhus". a) I have been using wikis for over 10 years but only recently have taken the step of opening a profile for myself on wikipedia. I am therefore quite new to conventions and etiquette here, and welcome correction. b) I was a typesetter for 10 years (1980–1990). My aim in editing is therefore stylistic and linguistic: unless I am absolutely sure of a factual error I will not change stated facts. c) I speak Danish and have been traveling to Denmark since 1982. I lived first near Vejen and later in Aarhus so I am particularly interested in Jylland; hence my interest in your articles. Rbd001 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for noticing me before undertaking your project. I am from Aarhus and English is only a second language to me, so it would be great with some copy editing. I personally seems to mix up "have" and "has" for example and there might be other grammatical issues as well.

If you encounter some obscure information, please notice us editors by inserting cn-tags in the text, instead of deleting stuff on your own right away. cn-tags will notify all editors and readers that something needs a proper sourcing and this is how things improve usually. Most of what I have written about Denmark and Eastern Jutland have already been filtered through by other editors, so cn-tags will most likely not be needed, but across Wikipedia we have quite a problem now with new editors coming forth and messing up articles, without adding much of value, which can be quite tiresome to clean up afterwards. Not that I accuse you - you appear to be the more conscious type of editor -, just be careful about changing information. This is crucial to a well functioning Wikipedia.

If you want some perosnal info or local advice even, I would be glad if I can be of any assistance. Just post here and I will be happy to answer and share what I know. Regards. RhinoMind (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. There are many places in Jutland that miss proper Wikipedia pages and information as is. Actually the low content quality was one reason for me to begin contributing in the first place, in particular the Aarhus page some years back. Still many places and cities in Jutland are only rudimentarily represented on WP. If you are entusiastic about Wikipedia information on sites in Jutland in particular, I can recommend using some of "my" pages as a template. This is an easy way to quickly write up solid pages. I know, because I employed that approach myself, glancing at well composed quality pages for structure, wording and such, so I am just passing on experience. Silkeborg, Herning, Vejle, Sønderborg, there are many places that appears quite dull and rather useless at the moment. Just some inspiration to a fellow editor, in case you would like to start adding content. RhinoMind (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Gribskov last night and Brabrand Lake tonight. My edits were somewhat heavier this time though my intent definitely has been not to change meaning, only to improve the English. Let me know whether I'm going too far for your taste.Rbd001 (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, RhinoMind. I'd like to discuss with you about the history section on the tag [when?] (......French archeological researcher,[when?] George Cœdès confirmed......) that you wanted me to mention about the exact year when George Cœdès investigated those inscriptions. I'd like to tell you, I have no idea to confirm you more about this because it wasn't mentioned in a book which I took information from. All information I've added to the topic are from a book but it doesn't mean that i copied every word from the book to the topic. Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanrasmey Miech (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanrasmey Miech: Hi! Thank you for reaching out here. It is not a big deal, but to most readers George Cœdès is an unknown character and I feel it is important to include just a little piece of information in the section about the timeline of the re-discovery of the 15 hospitals. Maybe we cannot find an exact date or year, but perhaps the source could be used to narrow the date down just a little bit? I mean was it in the 1910's? The early 1900's? The first part of the 20th century? Or something like that? If we don't include anything at all, it could have been in 2010 for that matter. I hope you can follow my argument? RhinoMind (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, because you are a new editor, I would like to say that you shouldn't alwyas take tags too personally. Most of the time they are put up so that editors can quicky spot if some kind of additional information or editting is required or requested. A way of saying "Hey Editor! If you happen to know something about this particular issue, adding the missing info will be appreciated". RhinoMind (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhinoMind ! In my prediction, George Cœdès confirmed those 15 temples to be hospitals in the early 20th century due to many documents that i read and learned at school. Cœdès started to discover Khmer temples, inscriptions and researched about Khmer civilization in early 20th century.

In addition, please check out my new information that I've just added to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanrasmey Miech (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. It makes the issue much more comprehensible! I have rearranged a few things in the sentence to fit the English language and make it simpler, but with the exact same info that you supplied. RhinoMind (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhinoMind ! I'd like to discuss with you more about the first paragraph of history section. In the book says traditional Cambodian medicine was being made and organized from Nokor Phnom period (Funan era) till Angkor period. As a matter of fact, the knowledge and the practice of Khmer traditional medicine have been transferred from generations to generations until present day. One of my aunt is " kru psom thnam " ( Khmer traditional herbal medicine combiner ) also.

. In the article says " .....but it is believed to have been founded and formalised in the 9th century, during the Angkorian period,..,," So we need to change a little bit in this section. Please give your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanrasmey Miech (talk • contribs) 03:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not sure what you want to change in the article? Are you questioning that TKM was founded in the 9th century? Please explain a bit further. RhinoMind (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on the text snippet you cite, it just states that the formalising of TKM as a coherent medicine system was finished during the Angkorian period. It doesn't say anything about how long that process took. And it does not exclude further developments later on either. RhinoMind (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! I'd like to change the article from " but it is believed to have been founded and formalised in the 9th century, during the Angkorian period " to " According to many documents, it is believed to have been found and organized since Nokor Phnom period (Funan era) ". (based on the main reference : "History of medicine", by Prof. Iv Chan, p.70, published in 2010.) Chanrasmey Miech (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I added a paragraph to the article about Prasat Chey and Prasat Lek 8 that were hospital buildings during Chenla period. Chenla Kingdom was the predecessor state of Khmer empire so it is clear that traditional Khmer medicine did exist before Angkor period. That's why I want to change your sentence i mentioned above.

Funan was the predecessor state of Chenla, it is the earliest state of Cambodia, found in the 1st century A.D. This state was influenced by Indian culture and yet, traditional Khmer medicine might be found and influenced by Indians. Chanrasmey Miech (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I think I get your drift now. The source I used to write the current text, explains how TKM appeared as a formalised coherent medicine system in the 9th century. However, as your source explains apparently (I haven't read it yet) the process leading up to this synthesis began during the Funan era (or even earlier). The text in the article does not contradict that. However, we could add something about the long process of synthesis and explain that it began during the Funan era (or perhaps earlier for some aspects of TKM). I suggest and hope we can agree on this formulation:

"but it is believed to have been founded and formalised from the Nokor Phnom period (Funan era) to the 9th century, during the Angkorian period."

Be sure to include a ref to your book too.

Comments: "According to many document" is obsolete. We (usually) only present knowledge backed up by solid sources in WP-articles, otherwise we wouldn't mention it. "Foundation" is when the system appeared and emerged in a coherent form, not when the formalisation process began.

Btw: I highly recommend the book "Cambodians and Their Doctors". It is mentioned in the Sources section and can be read on-line for free. RhinoMind (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanrasmey Miech: While we are at it, I would really appreciate if we could gather information about relevant centers, organizations and institutions dealing with Traditional Cambodian medicine. I spend quite some time trying to get an overview of this issue, and I came up with the two institutions of Traditional Medicine Research Center and National School of Traditional Medicine as the most serious and important. Is this correct? Could you help gather information about and write articles about these institutions perhaps? Do you know if there are other institutions worthy of mention in the big picture of TCM? RhinoMind (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestion about the formulation that you mentioned above. Please edit the article as soon as possible in order to avoid confusion from readers.

I'm not sure that I can provide the information relate to center, institutions and originations of Khmer traditional medicine because I don't have any book as the reference.

I can provide you pictures of Khmer traditional herbal drugs, if you would like to get them. Chanrasmey Miech (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have changed the sentence now. But you said you have a source on the "Nokor Phnom period (Funan era)" part. Please insert it in the section. I have put up a cn-tag there. RhinoMind (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now inserted the ref "History of Medicine" you mentioned above. As I haven't read it (I do not have the book), I hope it is the correct one? RhinoMind (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the institutions. I was mainly interested in knowing which centres where the most important in modern Cambodia. Then maybe I could dig up theiw websites and gather more info later on. The two I listed is quite important as far as I know, but maybe there are others. That was my main issue. RhinoMind (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some images of TCM/TKM concoctions, potions, etc., we can put them up on the Wikicommons site if you are ready to share them. I have been very active on the WC site myself, mostly with mages from Denmark where I am fromn. But you should be aware that every image we upload to WC can be used by anyone, including for commercial projects, and you will not get any money for it. That is the rules on WC... Just saying.

If I can make a whish for images I would really like to see some good images from a TCM/TKM store. Images where you can see the salesman, customer and some medicines. It would also be great if we had images of some TCM/TKM for sale, either in plastic bottles, jars or in the market. Well...there are many interesting things from TCM/TKM that would be great to document for people who don't know about it :) Do you have a place on the internet where you can show some of your images? then it would be easier to discuss them if you would like me to comment? RhinoMind (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meso-zeaxanthin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marigold. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Morphogenetic resonance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As written, does not provide indication of notability of the concept. Without references to discussion (whether skeptical or positive) of the concept by reliable sources such as independent scholars, the concept is not notable and should be redirected to Rupert Sheldrake.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Morphogenetic resonance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morphogenetic resonance until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I see that you added {{stub|reason=Add descriptions from more countries. South America, Asia, Russia, Eastern Europe, etc.}} to Youth homelessness, but:

1. The article isn't a stub
2. The {{stub}} template doesn't take a "reason" field
3. All stub tags should go at the end of the article not the top - see WP:ORDER
4. {{globalise}}, with perhaps a longer comment on the talk page, might convey your message better.

Happy editing, PamD 08:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not implementing your insight. RhinoMind (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people from Aarhus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sara Petersen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Last year, you signed up to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) 2016 on the English Wikipedia. The event was an international success, with hundreds of editors creating thousands of articles on Asian topics across dozens of different language versions of Wikipedia.

I'd like to invite you to join us for Wikipedia Asian Month 2017, which once again lasts through the month of November. The goal is for users to create new articles on Asian-related content, each at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words in length. Editors who create at least four articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard!

Also be sure to check out the Wikipedia Asian Art Month affiliate event - creating articles on Asian art topics can get you a Metropolitan Museum of Art postcard!

If you're interested, please sign up here for the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in also working on other language editions of Wikipedia, please visit the meta page to see other participating projects. If you have any questions, please visit our talk page.

Thank you!

- User:SuperHamster and User:Titodutta on behalf of The English Wikipedia WAM Team

This will be the last message you receive from the English Wikipedia WAM team for being a 2016 participant. If you sign up for WAM 2017, you will continue receiving periodic updates on the 2017 event.

I wont revert this but please see WP:REPEATLINK which says:

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

In this context the primary is the link in the article body (with secondary being infoboxes, etc) which is evident throughout wikipedia. This de facto established standard on wikipedia can be seen in every single Danish featured article. All have repeat links in lead text–infobox (only exception is the "Carl Nielsen" article with its very basic infobox). This isn't a mistake in the Danish featured articles but the format used virtually throughout wikipedia, including in featured articles elsewhere such as Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service (that example is today's featured article on the main page). It also appears you have accepted this standard before which can be seen in the articles on your own front page (among the ones listed under "If you feel for it, stroll along an excerpt of my Wiki-deeds so far" almost all have repeat links in lead text–infobox. The only exceptions are "New Forests of Aarhus" that completely lacks an infobox and "Traditional Cambodian medicine" that lacks a normal infobox).
NB. This was just a commentary. If you feel like commenting please don't expect another reply from me because I'm leaving for vacation tomorrow. Happy editing. 178.155.191.162 (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We try to crop link overload and link farming whenever we encounter it. RhinoMind (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just tweaked a ref you updated, and in doing so I noticed this scary-looking message:

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox company with unknown parameter "Slogan" (this message is shown only in preview).

I'm wondering if you saw that also? (oh, added here in 2016) Perhaps looking at that template would find what to use instead of 'Slogan'? I'm not seeing 'slogan' or 'motto'... maybe there just isn't anything? Shenme (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shenme: Hello. I'm sorry, but it wasn't much help, just removing two square brackets in a ref. If you want to improve the ref markup, please use "cite web"-template or similar. I might add it later myself perhaps. I didn't update the ref by the way, I just placed it correctly, as someone (a representative from the company) have added some new info in a way that was incompatible with how Wikipedia present info.

Anyway, infobox templates are often crammed with useless parameters which have either become obsolete or simply outdated. Don't worry. If you are "scared" by any related warnings, just remove the parameter altogether, it's ok. RhinoMind (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing a source from Højbjerg? Sam Sailor 14:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed on the Højbjerg TalkPage, not here. RhinoMind (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't blank pages. It looks to me like this is potentially a legitimate redirect and so there isn't a ground for deletion. But for future reference, if you think a page should be deleted, there are processes to go through. Please see WP:Deletion policy, WP:AFD, WP:RFD, WP:PROD and WP:CSD. — Smjg (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smjg: Hi. If it really needs to exist, which I don't think, it should redirect to the article Aarhus. Aarhus Municipality is a municipality, not a city, and there is already an article for the city of Aarhus, namely the Aarhus article. RhinoMind (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked up on what links to "City of Aarhus", it was this page: Marselisborg Palace. What it meant to say was "Aarhus City Council" and this page already redirects to Aarhus Municipality. "City of Aarhus" is redundant. RhinoMind (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article related to an article that you have been involved in editing—Aarhus metropolitan area—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have been editing the AArhus Article, I have had a look at the related "Aarhus metropolitan area" article and think it should be merged, please follow the link if you are interested.TSventon (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have replied on the EJMA page, but I forgot to ping you.TSventon (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know, I have added more detail to Copenhagen Capacity and removed your tag from May 2018.TSventon (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? Explain?--Woogie 10w 13:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Let's keep this to the Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Just one more thing page. I have posted my answer there. RhinoMind (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-communist mass killings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle America (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you have done is known on Wikipedia as "cut-and-paste move", when the whole text of the article is copied to another location, and a redirect is inserted to the old location. This is absolutely unacceptable, since the edit history can not be recovered any more. Please never ever do this again. Moves should be performed with the move button. However, in this case the move is going to be controversial, and you need to gain consensus first. To get consensus, please open a requested move at the talk page. The link I provided details the procedures one needs to use.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: If you know how to do it, then do it. Everything has been explained on the TalkPage (go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Denmark_Region). And you haven't read that explanation. Don't be obstructive to constructive edits. Especially when you have no reason to.

That being said, this can not be solved by a simple pagemove. RhinoMind (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but these edits were not constructive. I have no position concerning the title of the article, however, I see that the issue is controversial. Controversial moved can only be performed with WP:RM.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth contacting the editor who moved the page to ask them to move it back. Wikipedia:Page mover has a section on Page move disputes, which says "This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in page move disputes. You have a privilege that most editors do not have. Editors without the right are sometimes unable to revert your moves (e.g. "round-robin" moves). Therefore, avoid making unilateral decisions, and revert upon request if a page move of yours proves to be reasonably controversial."TSventon (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon:, are you now addressing me or RhinoMind? The page wa moved by JFG, and I have no opinion on whether it should have been moved or not, I merely restored the edit history.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinomind, Ymblanter, I was addressing Rhinomind, apologies if this was not clear. @Ymblanter:, would you agree that contacting JFG could be a useful first step?TSventon (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the move is contested, definitely yes. If they disagree, then opening a RM is the next one.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: @Ymblanter: Hi all. I think it would be a good idea to start a "requested move" on the TalkPage, as stated by Ymblanter. But ... I don't know how and don't have the time neither. I have posted links to all necessary information about the issue (here and on the two article pages), so if someone knows how to and have the time, then please go ahead. Thanks. RhinoMind (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhinomind, Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge or time to start a requested move either.TSventon (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know I have merged Aarhus metropolitan area into East Jutland metropolitan area as discussed in October. I have also added a section on Business Region Aarhus to EJMA. Thank you for all your suggestions.TSventon (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Svenson. Good idea. I forgot about those pages completely. We didn't implemented the conclusions back then, so all is good now. The EJMA might need further improvements in the future, I might improve the image part of the page soon for example.

Also, I didn't notice it was you up in the discussion above about the North Denmark Region. There is a backstory to that and it's quite amusing: All the Danish regional pages received the attention of a certain geographer from Germany some time ago. He didn't like the official English names and wanted to impose his own ideas. It went so far, that he even wrote the Danish regional authorities and tried to make them change the name! Amusing and weird all at the same time. This style seems to be an issue with German geographical editors: Another guy imposed his idea that the Aarhus River should be called "Aarhus" - as the city itself. He sternly refused to include the word River. Having misunderstood the English language, he thought that when a text described "... the river of Aarhus" when discussing the geography of the city, it meant that the river was actually called Aarhus! He had imposed this weird interpretation in all major European cities! Ok, I'll stop boring you with my stories, but wanted to share the weirdness that is Wikipedia editing :-D Have a nice day. RhinoMind (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't worked out how to close a merger, hence the delay. I agree that there is still scope for improving EJMA, in particular I would like to update the maps to show the current 19 municipalities. On North Denmark Region, it would be helpful if Danish authorities could be consistent, but I am not planning to write to them about it.TSventon (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ewen Douglas (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ewen Douglas (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RhinoMind reported by User:Ewen Douglas (Result: ). You seem to have broken WP:3RR at Jutland and you were warring to restore unsourced information about a living person (their accent). There may still be time for you to promise to wait for consensus on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of ecoregions in Europe, 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. PATH SLOPU 12:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RhinoMind,

Thanks for creating Baltic mixed forests! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lendia (tree). Since you had some involvement with the Lendia (tree) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I answered at the discussion page. Thank you for notifying me. RhinoMind (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RhinoMind, I'd like to attract your attention to the issue I noticed with your edit on the page of Gnetum. Could You please have a look? Talk:Gnetum#New_section_Gnetum_sect._Cylindrostachys_and_messed_up_classification. I wish You nice day :-) --Reo On (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at the Gnetum TalkPage RhinoMind (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RhinoMind, I am back after 5 months, sorry for not talking back. I am rarelly on Wikipedia active site (in the last 10 years), so I did not even notice. And I have hard time to fid any time. Moreover unfortunatelly plant classification is not my forte, nothing I would undestand. So I will have to leave it in your care (or someone's else) It seem You are active regularly :-) .. it is good that there good active wikipedians yet :-). Could I ask You for looking into it a bit further? Sincerelly --Reo ^ON | +++

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaume Natural Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natural park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nature park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natural park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under the subheading The future of education in the article about "Education", the first paragraph says, "The world is changing at an ever quickening rate, which means that a lot of knowledge becomes obsolete and inaccurate more quickly. The emphasis is therefore shifting to teaching the skills of learning: to picking up new knowledge quickly and in as agile a way as possible." To what extent is this uncited text appropriate to be on the article?

I chose to talk to you anonymously so I don't earn a bad reputation for my account.

171.48.45.109 (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@171.48.45.109: Hi. I haven't been engaged in that particular article, but I have been working professionally with education and has been trained as a high-school teacher too. I have never used those credentials in any of my contributions to Wikipedia directly, but I can confirm that the statement is definitely true to some extent. In some areas more than others. If we are talking vocational education, the statement is absolutely true and even so much so, that it should be addressed quite seriously. If we are talking basic academic areas, I don't think the statement is equally important and urgent. Because those areas are not based on information or fabrication skills alone, but much more on academic analytical skills, and they are not being outdated by increased access to information. The pedagogical approach to teaching basic academics though, and teaching in general, is in need of serious updating in many parts of the world, but that is another matter of concern.

I certainly think this should be part of "The future of education" and much more than that small section could be written about it. But the main issue in all of this is building a base of relevant literature and references. Without them, it is impossible to add anything to Wikipedia. So I think this would be the main task: To build a proper and reliable database of literature and references to this particular field.

I don't understand why it would be a problem for you to sign with your username. RhinoMind (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RhinoMind, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moxy 🍁 21:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Why are you writing these threats on my page? What's your problem? RhinoMind (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMG sorry wrong tag...was just letting you know we need sources when adding content to \articles...nothing related to copyright my bad.--Moxy 🍁 21:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Well of course. I have written and contributed for years to Wikipedia. It seems like you have a special reason to write this on my wall. Or is it just an overall Stalinist purge campaign you are running? RhinoMind (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you know that adding "this requires a source. All the best --Moxy 🍁 21:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: If that was your issue, why aren't you notifying on that page's TalkPage? That is what TalkPages are for, you know. I can reply here, but let us move that particular discussion to the proper TalkPage afterwards.

Cuba issue: What I added was only a summary of the three pages relating to the indigenous tribes on Cuba. Nothing else. And we don't need references for summaries of other wiki-pages. If it is a big problem, we can always add the proper refs from those pages. It's called over-reffing, but if it solves a problem, let's do that. RhinoMind (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good because we should always follow WP:Burden. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations...never make readers looks for refs on some-other page that may or may not have sources.--Moxy 🍁 22:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I dream of horses was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of terrestrial ecoregions (WWF) instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of ecoregions in Europe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of ecoregions in Europe, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 07:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If/when you have time, could you re-visit the discussion at Talk:Khao Soi Dao Mountains? I've since created the article Chanthaburi Mountains, and I think it would make sense to concentrate the content about the mountain range there, and rename the older one to cover the wildlife sanctuary. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I'll go ahead an perform the reorganisation. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a working man. And sometimes that work is all consuming. But just go ahead. I'll get around when I find the time, don't worry. I regret my lack of commitment. RhinoMind (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Europe: Norway, Sweden, Finland. Since you had some involvement with the Europe: Norway, Sweden, Finland redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm WilliamJE. I noticed that you made a comment on the page List of people from Aarhus that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you put things into WP with garbage references aka they don't corroborate the sentence, the entry in an article, etc etc. You're doing it at List of people from Aarhus. @Deepfriedokra:, an administrator who might want to chime in on this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provide one reliable source he lives in Aarhus. @Deepfriedokra: please note according to here[3] this editor is the original editor to add the entry. You may want to weigh that when replying....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 2 things. 1)

"All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking."

2) Poorly sourced/unsourced content (on WP:BLP's) may be challenged and removed. It's up to the person adding the content to adequately/acceptably source the content and obtain consensus to add it back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RhinoMind. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of ecoregions in Europe".

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 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) 20:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Episesarma versicolor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calyx.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of ecoregions in Europe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhinomind, I was hoping you could help on an article that you've been contributing to for some time now. On the second paragraph of the article on Kattegat, two methods of dredging are mentioned: sand pumping and stone fishing. I've heard of the first one, but never the second. I asked about on Reddit, and eventually landed on r/danishlanguage, where I learned that a Stenfisker (stone fisher) is a ship that picks up rocks from the seabed. As you were the one to add the passage originally, I was wondering if you knew of any English language sources that mention stone fishing in general or in the Kattegat in particular? Charwood12 (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Charwood12: Hello, and thanks for you notice! Yes, it is known as Stenfisker in Danish, and in former times it was a proper profession even. And they use/used specialised prams to pick up boulders from the seafloor. I think nowadays we get our boulder-stones from Norway, as most stoney reefs here in Denmark are protected. I wasn't aware that it might create some confusion, but as you mentioned it, I can see that it most likely a local profession that isn't well-known elsewhere in most other countries. We don't have easy access to stone as a natural resource in Denmark, and it was easy to just pick them up from the seabed. They were used for coast-securing bulwarks anyway.

I am not aware of any texts in English describing this, really. Not from the top of my head. I would have to do some Googling to dig something up. What have you tried so far? RhinoMind (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I can try finding something in Danish, it will perhaps be easier. We can use sources in other languages than English on the English Wikipedia. But I don't know what you want to do with these potential sources? It would help to know. RhinoMind (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barons of Denmark has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 19 § Category:Closed military installations on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]