User Talk: Mathijsloo

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Nomination of :Incorporation (Netherlands) ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''':Incorporation (Netherlands) ↗''' 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/Incorporation (Netherlands) ↗ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
</div> gidonb (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beatrice de Graaf ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NOS ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of equestrian statues ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Varna ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, :Gage Munroe ↗, but you didn't provide a reliable source ↗. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable ↗. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation ↗, your edit is archived in the page history ↗. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Waxworker (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

:I wasn't aware that even these kind of small pieces of information should have a reference. Mathijsloo (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Poséidon Castle ↗

Dear Martinloo,
If I am not mistaken, it is you who added last August a banner on the article Castle Poséidon, with two claims:
1.This article needs additional citations for verification.
2.This article possibly contains original research.
I am persuaded that this article is in conformity with Wikipedia-rules.

May I ask you to remove the banner, or otherwise to motivate its content?
Best Regards Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

:Dear Andries, I think the first of the two claims could be removed from the banner, because some inline references have been added last months. Although, there are still some paragraphs in the history outline that have none. Regarding the original research claim, I think this still is at play. In the bibliography-section shows archival records, and Geneanet. Also the YouTube-link at the architecture section requires a better source. Therefore, it is in my opinion to early to remove the claim regarding original research. Mathijsloo (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
:: Dear Mathijsloo, You have put a banner of "possibly original research" on the article Chateau Poséidon. This was in last August. We are now months later and you did not find proof of your suspicion, so it seems. Would it not be time to ban the banner? I thank you on beforehand for it. ̰̰̰̰Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Dear Andries, you asked the same question almos two months ago and in the response here above, I adressed several issues that needs to be fixed for a removal of the template. During the period in between these issues have not been fixed and I am willingly to remove the template if the issues have been fixed.
:::I also want to point out, that it wasn't me ↗ who put the maintenaince template in the article and I'm also not alone in my criticism on the original research, as shown in this edit summary ↗. Good luck in improving the article. Mathijsloo (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
:::: Sorry, but the references I gave are the best I can find. In general I do not agree with an evolution in Wikipedia whereby references are more and more needed, into the absurd. This is an encyclopedia and not a gathering of scientific articles. Look all encyclopedia's up: there are no footnotes, only mentions of publications (and even that not always). And then there is this rather stupid condition of "no original research". Every sentence is fruit of research. The way this condition is interpreted by some I find abusive. What is more, one should take as a condition that those who make objections, work themselves to correct what they think has to be corrected, instead of taking the easy way of putting up templates. Best regards, ̼Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::@Andries Van den Abeele, I contribute in improving the article, but I did not write it and if you want to have the template removed there are two ways. 1: You rewrite the article, based on reliable and secondary sources (please read Wikipedia:No original research ↗) or 2: if you cant or wont, we can also delete the paragraphs that are written with the primary and unreliable sources. This would mean that the section about the Bouillet family will removed, as well as the architecture section. Mathijsloo (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::: In my view the sections Boullet and architecture are sufficiently referenced. The mentioned bibliography gives all the information. I do not accept that every sentence has to be followed by a reference. This is an encyclopedic article, not a scientific study. Your view on what are "primary and reliable sources" is, I think, extreem and not tenable. Not accept newspaper articles and Geneanet information as reliable sources, is not serious. Altough severe, the users of the French and the Dutch Wikipedia have accepted that. You keep a lonely battle. This is not favourable for Wikipedia and I regret this very much. You are wanting conditions which are not applcated in millions of articles on the English Wikipedia. But I am no longer inclined to fight against the unreasonable. If the article has to be cancelled, so be it. I am afraid it will be a poor 'victory' of which you will not have to be proud. Best regards,Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC) ᷉᷉
:::::::First of all, and let make me this very clear: I do not want that the article to be deleted, it should be improved and that is were this is all about. It is a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia articles on the English Wikipedia has certain policies ↗ regarding articles. One of them is ''Verifiability'': "Articles should cite sources whenever possible. While we cannot check the accuracy of cited sources, we can check whether they have been published by a reputable publication and whether independent sources have supported them on review." Articles should be written on reliable sources and Geneanet is not, it's user generated content ↗ and therefore not usefull. Also the Youtube link that is used for the architecture secture is an unreliable source (see here ↗). I do understand this page is been written with love, but it really needs improvement to meet the standards of the English Wikipedia. Mathijsloo (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text ↗ to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as :Marlou Schrover ↗. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism ↗, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at {{§l|Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources}}, including the usage of an attribution template ↗. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)