Hello Jurriaan, welcome to Wikipedia. I have moved your question to the village pump. If you have any more questions, see the help pages or add them to the village pump page village pump. You can learn more on the how to edit page. Angela 07:28, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC) Hi. These pages you're making: Phelsuma madagascariensis grandis etc -- they are redirects that don't go anywhere! Why are you doing this? -- Tarquin 13:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC) Hi. After reading some discussions, I noticed that most wikipedians seem to think it is better to use common English animal names as an article entry rather than the latin names. The reason I make these redirects is because this way the scientific name redirects to the common name in stead of duplicating articles. I am writing these articles right now. Jurriaan Maybe it creates less confusion if you create those redirect after you create the main article. Another hint: If you write the ISBN in the correct style the wiki software here will automagically create a link which will guide you to possible book sources. andy 18:03, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) Jurriaan, you have made me angry! I thought my Plumed Basilisk pic had been deleted and yet I could see no reason for you doing it! So I spent half an hour putting it back and improving the caption. Now I discover you have simply moved it to a Plumed Basilisk article. (By the way, the article title should surely not be the latin name, it should be Plumed Basilisk). Please always tell the person who put the picture on that it has merely been moved, to save the time I have just wasted. You only have to write in the Summary box of the Edit Page Pic of Basilisk moved to Plumed Basilisk and I would have understood everything. Best Wishes Adrian Pingstone 17:27, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC) Thanks for your answer on my Talk Page. It's clear you've understood that if you make a really major change then it's often a good idea (depending on your own judgement as to whether it's necessary) for the original author (or the provider of a pic in my case) to be given the reasons. This can be done on their Talk page or, more simply, in the Summary box In any case, don't forget to put some kind of remark in the Summary box, about what it is you've just done, unless the Edit is very minor in which case just click in the This is a minor Edit box and leave the Summary box blank. Did you know about signing your messages here (or anywhere else) with four tildes? That's the wavy line thingy, it will be on your keyboard, probably to the left of the main Enter key, living with the Hash key. Then the time and your username will be automatically added. Try it! Cheers from Adrian. Adrian Pingstone 19:47, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC) I didn't know that. Thank you for the suggestion! Jurriaan 10:01, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC) Thanks for the info on animal and plant names. I work a lot with scientific names of birds, and the rules are different. So that KRUGER part looked really out of place. So, thanks again for letting me know. Kingturtle 17:20, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC) Hi Jurriaan- can you explain what a Takydromus is? I looked at the page and was none the wiser! (ie, could you include some more detail rather than just the classificatuion info) Cheers quercus robur 12:36, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) Thanks for all your hard work on the classifications. But could you please give some descriptions on each article so the common user knows what biological entity is being classified? thanks! Kingturtle 19:14, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC) Contents 1 Photo 2 Borzoi photo 3 Other dog photos 4 dog pictures 5 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/P. serraticauda images 6 Article Licensing 7 Peer review of tuatara Photo Good Chow Chow! Good doggie! (I love dogs, don't have one.) --Menchi 10:48, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC) Hello Jurriaan! Great dog pictures! Like Menchi i love them but dont have them. But why do you put them in the dog breed page? why dont place them in the breed itself page? It would look nicer... Cheers, Muriel Victoria 11:20, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC) Hi Muriel, I explained the reason I put those pictures on the dog breed page at Talk:List_of_dog_breeds. To summarize: I am not 100% sure that I identified all breeds correctly. I am waiting for someone to help me with that. After that the pictures should be moved to the breed page as you suggested. Cheers, Jurriaan 12:11, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC) The brown Irish wolfhound is definitly one of them: i know adog of this breed. They are really huge! I'll move it. Cheers, Muriel Hi Jurriaan, Thanks for the reply about the subdivisions of gemeenten on the Village Pump page. Since you appear to be the only Dutch person to have replied, perhaps I can probe you a bit more. For example, if you look at Nijmegen, the webpage http://www.sdu.nl/staatscourant/gem/gem344g.htm says that the gemeente comprises Plaatsen, dorpen, gehuchten, stadsdelen (geen wijken) Lent Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Oosterhout Nijmegen, Ressen Nijmegen The questions this raises are Are the subdivisions listed (Lent Nijmegen, etc) official in any way, or will different people come up with different lists? Since those lists from the website above have been re-created in each Wikipedia article, then if they're not official, their value in each article is questionable. If the subdivisions (Lent Nijmegen, etc) ARE official, can each one be assigned to a different type (Plaatsen, dorpen, etc)? In other words, can one say for example that Lent Nijmegen is a stadsdeel, and Ressen Nijmegen is a dorp? Or is the list of types specified as Plaatsen, dorpen, gehuchten, stadsdelen (geen wijken) just to try to cover all sorts of subdivision a gemeente might have, in a general way? Hope you can answer these questions :-) Just pop the answers below and put a little note on my page to say you've replied. Thanks. Spellbinder 20:45, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) These subdivisions are official. I find the term "stadsdelen (geen wijken) a bit confusing since stadsdeel and wijk often mean the same. The best translation for "stadsdeel" would probably be district (it literally means part of the town/city) and "wijk" could be translated with either district or neighbourhood. Nijmegen is divided into 9 "stadsdelen" (Stadscentrum, Oud Oost, Oud West, Nieuw West, Midden Zuid, Zuidrand, Dukenburg, Lindenholt, Waalsprong) and 44 "wijken". Lent, Oosterhout, Ressen etc. are "wijken" but I guess they startet as villages around Nijmegen and as Nijmegen expanded are now part of Nijmegen. "Plaatsen, dorpen, gehuchten, stadsdelen" covers indeed all sorts of subdivision a gemeente (municipality) might have. See also http://www.nijmegen.nl/Wijkinformatie/index.asp If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to askJurriaan 22:05, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) Ah, ik snap 'm :-) But it's left me more confused about those lists from www.sdu.nl. So a few more questions (sorry!) Is every gemeente divided into stadsdelen, and then the stadsdelen divided into wijken? That's obviously the case for Nijmegen, but is it true for every gemeente in the Netherlands? Why does that list from www.sdu.nl specify "Lent Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Oosterhout Nijmegen, Ressen Nijmegen"? That's one entry ("Nijmegen") that covers 41 wijken, and then the other 3 wijken (in just the stadsdeel of Waalsprong) are listed separately, despite the "(geen wijken)"! That makes no sense at all. If I look at Arnhem, the wiki article specifies the same as http://www.sdu.nl/staatscourant/gem/gem30g.htm Arnhem, Elden, Schaarsbergen but the stadsdelen are listed on http://www.arnhem.nl as stadsdeel 1 Binnenstad stadsdeel 2 Broek/Presikhaaf stadsdeel 3 Noord Oost stadsdeel 4/5 Noord West (incusief Schaarsbergen, 5) stadsdeel 6 Oud Zuid stadsdeel 7 Elderveld de Laar stadsdeel 8 Vredenburg/Rijkerswoerd so again there's no correspondence. Elden and Schaarsbergen are just 2 out of the 24 wijken. Given all this, are those www.sdu.nl lists meaningful at all? They've been duplicated throughout the wiki articles, but I increasingly think that they're just a random list of places from within the gemeente, and don't reflect anything about the internal structure within the gemeenten. So is it worth leaving them in, or are they just misleading? Spellbinder 00:28, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) Hello Spellbinder, Only large (by Dutch standards of course :-) ) cities ared divided into stadsdelen and those stadsdelen are divided into wijken. Smaller cities and towns, like where I grew up, are only divided into wijken. That's why the word stadsdeel confused me a bit; most people refer to the wijk where they live, not to the stadsdeel. To make things even more complicated, wijken are sometimes divided into "buurten" (also translated with neighbourhood) which could comprise only a few streets. A gemeente must not necessarily include more plaatsen and can verry well be only one town. I must say I am quite puzzled as well. I don't think that all web pages are up to date. I'll try to explain what I found out. To my understanding, Oosterhout, Lent and Ressen are actually villages which until recently belonged to a different gemeente. They now belong to Nijmegen and are called wijken (these villages are in fact more or less integrated into Nijmegen). That would mean that the number of 44 wijken on www.nijmegen.nl is not correct (it should probably be 50 by now, see also: http://www.nijmegen.nl/Leven_in_Nijmegen/feitenencijfers/wijken_gebieden/wijken/index.asp). It would also mean that the sentence Plaatsen, dorpen, gehuchten, stadsdelen (not wijken) is not correct. It might be a standard expression that www.sdu.nl uses for all gemeenten. So a village can also be a wijk if it is close to the city. I would remove the link to www.sdu.nl and instead place a link to the homepage of the corresponding city/town/whatever. The same goes for Arnhem, i.e. Elden and Schaarsbergen are now wijken of Arnhem (http://www.arnhem.nl/sites/internet_nieuw/internet_skeleton/Framework/index.html?ingang=wonen_leven&page=http%3A//www.arnhem.nl/sites/internet_nieuw/wonen_leven/arnhem_per_wijk). CheersJurriaan 09:56, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) --- Thanks Juriaan, I understand completely now. Incidentally, Nijmegen has got 44 wijken ...count them: 4 columns of 9 and 1 of 8: (4*9)+8=44. I'm sure you're right that those north of the Waal have only recently been moved into the Nijmegen gemeente. The question remains what the best way to deal with it is. Those www.sdu.nl lists are idiosyncratic to say the least - misleading to put it more bluntly. And the translations on wiki say, for example The municipality also comprises the following towns, villages and townships: Elden, Schaarsbergen. The municipality also comprises the following towns, villages and townships: Lent, Nijmegen-Oosterhout, Nijmegen-Ressen. (Or did until I changed it and started this whole debate.) That makes it look as though the lists represent the subdivisions of the gemeente, which is not the case at all :-( And there are 489 gemeenten to change :-(((( I'll see if I can get any info from the user Patrick, who input all these lists, then take the discussion back to the Village Pump. Thanks for your time - I couldn't have done it without you :-) Spellbinder 10:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) User:Jheijmans did most of them, see Talk:Municipalities in the Netherlands. - Patrick 16:59, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC) You are right! Nijmegen has only 44 wijken. Normally a gemeente comprises one or more plaatsen (the largest plaats usually has a town hall). Larger plaatsen (i.e. villages, towns/cities) are often divided into wijken or even stadsdelen. Confusing is that apparently sometimes the different plaatsen which belong to a certain gemeente are considered wijken instead of plaatsen. I think this happens when those surrounding plaatsen are assimilated by the larger plaats.Jurriaan 12:38, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) I can see even more complications! Utrecht, for example, is divided into wijken which are further subdivided into subwijken - there being no stadsdelen there. Just for my interest' sake, what is the relation of wijken to wethouders? In the UK, our local constituencies (roughly "gemeenten") is made up of wards (roughly "wijken") and each ward elects one or more councillors ("wethouders"), but each councillor represents just the one ward. I would guess that it doesn't work that way in the Netherlands. Spellbinder 13:19, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) There is no relation between wethouders and wijken. A wethouder is more like a kind of minister of the gemeente. So every wethouder has different responsibilities like a wethouder of finance, a wethouder of culture, a wethouder of sports etc. etc. Jurriaan 17:06, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) Borzoi photo Hey, there, someone else who likes taking dog photos! I have replaced one of yours from the Borzoi article ( Other dog photos Yes, I've seen your photos there. I went ahead and moved your harlequin great dane to the Great Dane article. At the moment, I don't think the other breed pages exist, so there's not a really good place to put them. (Much like User:Sannse/Dogs, who has them listed on a separate user page. Maybe we should create a separate "temporary dog photo storage page?" Hmm, I'll have to think about that.) Meanwhile, it would be helpful to know which (if any) you are absolutely sure of--for example, if the owners told you. :-) Maybe you could put notes on that talk page for each just stating how confident you are of the breeds. Most of them I'd say look pretty right but there are so many almost-similar breeds that it's hard to tell (I can't tell wolfhound & deerhound apart without side-by-side comparisons, for example). I especially wonder about the Rhodesian Ridgeback. From what I've seen of the breed, the head shape is wrong and I don't see a ridge, which is usually prominent. But if you know otherwise, it would be helpful to know that. Thanks again! Elf | Talk 23:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) dog pictures I just looked over the photos you have that you aren't completely sure about the breeds, and wanted to give you my opinion. the coton de tulear pic looks more like a maltese to me. i think the cotons generally have a wider body and face. the rhodesian ridgeback looks more like a red rottie, i can't see a ridge (and even at the odd angle, one should be at least slightly visible) and the face shape is wrong. the giant schauzer is probably a standard. the giant i knew was at least as tall as my hip, and unless the person showing the dog is really tall, it's too short to be a giant. the old english sheepdog is either a puppy or a bearded collie, it's also too short to be a OES. the neapolitan mastiff might be right, but it also could be a cane corso (i can't really tell them apart). the cane corse i know looked almost exactly like that. i hope i was of some help :) Lachatdelarue 13:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/P. serraticauda images Your gallery of images has been listed for deletion (not the images). The reason is that there are only two images, which doesn't seem to justify a separate gallery. I've put one of the images onto the main page. Do you have any more photos? Female ones? Hunting ones? Mozzerati 20:16, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC) Article Licensing Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information: Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered Multi-Licensing Guide Free the Rambot Articles Project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page: Option 1 I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} OR Option 2 I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below: {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) Peer review of tuatara Hi Jurriaan, if you have any ideas for improving the tuatara article, please let me know on the peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Tuatara. Many thanks and best wishes, Samsara contrib talk 16:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Search Term: "User_talk:Jurriaan_Schulman"