Espoo

Hello Espoo, welcome to the Dutch Wikipedia! Welkomstbericht in het Nederlands Thank you for participating in this community project. We would like to give you the opportunity to be free and productive. Here are a few directions that might help you: A collection of useful links in English can be found on Help:English. Please use our Sandbox (zandbak) for experimenting. Feel free to add your expertise to Wikipedians by interest, and to use our Babel templates (taalsjablonen) on your user page. Wikipedia has been an ongoing project for several years now. There have been discussions on many issues in the past. Please check the discussion pages (overlegpagina's) if you are in doubt about the contents of a given page. If you want to make a careful start editing in Dutch, try to expand some of our stubs (beginnetjes). Take care when editing someone else's work. Registered users can change the name of an article by using "Titel wijzigen". This method of renaming keeps the history (geschiedenis) of a page intact. Questions about Wikipedia or for help can be asked at the Helpdesk. To sign messages, use four tildes: ~~~~ More information (in Dutch) can be found on our conventions page and the wikiquette page.

Windjammer

Hi Espoo, please don't remove information completely but explain why it's wrong in the article (as is done on en:). I've adapted the piece now. Niels^? 12 mei 2013 21:48 (CEST)

Hi, since my edit summary was in English you should have been able to guess that i don't speak any Dutch, so what you wrote above and in your edit summary doesn't make any sense. I don't speak any Dutch, but i understand enough due to its similarity to other languages i know that i was confident that what was in the article was not only nonsense but also unsourced. So since i don't speak Dutch, i couldn't edit the article, but i definitely did the right thing in removing the nonsense and providing help in the edit comment on where to get the correct info since one of the most important principles of editing WP is that anything that is unsourced can be removed (as far as i remember, Jimbo even says: should be removed). But i admit i often write the same thing as you did above when people simply remove stuff without any explanation (which was not the case this time).

Really strange is that "een klankschilderende vorming" sounds like http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/windjammer has a remnant of the incorrect folk etymology despite giving the correct words that "windjammer" derives from. But apparently both dictionaries you cited provide the same incorrect translation of "to jam", at least according to http://dictionary.sensagent.com/doordouwen/nl-en/ Even stranger is that etymologiebank.nl/ is hosted by a research institute of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences according to http://www.etymologiebank.nl/partners#mi I'll send them an email... --Espoo (overleg) 12 mei 2013 22:48 (CEST)

Moi Espoo, I perfectly understood you don't speak Dutch, and also perfectly understood your reason for removing the sentence (as you indeed wrote a clear summary), but in this case I thought it better to leave the false information in but explain it in the article, as it is a mistake that is made often. As for removing unsourced content on a language you don't speak - I would tend to err on the side of caution and put a note on the talk page before doing so generally,

NLwiki's policy/unspoken rules on sourced vs. unsourced information are different from en:.

You're correct about the "klankschilderende vorming" (=onomatopoeic formation) mentioned on etymologiebank.nl, which is why I left it out in my edit. Although I wouldn't say that "doord(o)uwen" is the most often used translation of "to jam" it is a possible one (although a bit far fetched - but assuming the WNT is correct and the original mention was around 1893 it is possible that the meaning of both "to jam" and "doord(o)uwen" shifted in the meantime). Good luck with your email! Terveisin, Niels^? 12 mei 2013 23:10 (CEST)