HendrikJan1968
Welcome
edit
|
Please stop with pushing you're personal opinion above sources and claiming that sources are not good just because it does not fit you're personal opinion. Bending sources so that it will fit you're opinion is not productive, nor in discussion something nor in editing. Stop reverting and calling good edits vandalism just because you don't agree with it, otherwise you may get blocked. Stating something without real backing of sources does not help the further long any real discusion or underpin you're arguments. Please argument and engage a talk page with real underlying sources, not just you're opinion. DagneyGirl (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- You are the one who’s removing existing sourced information without explaining why. The Dutch names were already mentioned, as well as the fact that they’re considered archaic. You removed the last part without any agreement. You are the one who should engage on a talk page before making these disruptive edits. HendrikJan1968 (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Again stop making bold claims without backing in anyway. They are not archaic, that's you're own opinion not fact. Also removing whole a text just you're personal believe something without sources is not done.. DagneyGirl (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hello HendrikJan1968, you mentioned "... the fact that they’re considered archaic. ..." It could be you consider something archaic, but the external link you gave here and some related edits, does not prove what you think is a fact. I would say, that external link is a strong indication that you mentioned in the article was incorrect. I agree with DagneyGirl that with this series of edits you were giving the readers incorrect information and you better stop this. - Robotje (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Again stop making bold claims without backing in anyway. They are not archaic, that's you're own opinion not fact. Also removing whole a text just you're personal believe something without sources is not done.. DagneyGirl (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Warning for
editPlease stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Wytgaard, you may be blocked from editing. DagneyGirl (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Warning for
editYou may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Damwâld. DagneyGirl (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)