User talk:PJ Geest

Welcome!

Hello, PJ Geest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kate Raworth 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/Kate Raworth 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. SB Shuvo 16:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbshuvo (talk • contribs)

Hi. I noticed that you recently added an infographic the articles Tornado and Tornado records. This graphic, which was created in 2010, is somewhat outdated as it does not contain the records that were set in 2011 and 2013. Do you know of any more up-to-date versions that would make a suitable replacement? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know some records on the graph are outdated. No, unfortunately I don't know of a more updated version of it. PJ Geest (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Effects of economic inequality into Economic inequality. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi PJ Geest,

My name is Sophie and I am very new to being a Wikipedia user - editing and writing articles. I am contacting you because I saw that you had made changes to the plastic pollution Wikipedia page. I was hoping I could get your help to create a new page for the company I work for, we are developing technology for biodegradable plastic solutions (not oxo-degradation) to help combat plastic pollution and fugitive plastics. As I am currently working at Polymateria, I am unable to create the company Wikipedia page and was hoping you could help me.

If you are happy to help me I can send you the text that I would like to have on the page, external sources included.

Again, as said I am very new to this side of Wikipedia so please do let me know if there is another way I should be trying to make these changes.

Thank you and hope to speak soon, Sophie SophieStromback (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

About publications from MDPI: it is not a good publisher, it isn't a bad publisher, either, it is so-so. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you added some Our World in Data maps to Energy subsidy last year. I think Our World in Data has released updated ones. I don't have the skill to edit images on Wikipedia, so I thought I'd see if you'd be interested in updating the maps: https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:, I uploaded the new maps to commons:

• Fossil-fuel-subsidies-gdp
• Fossil-fuel-subsidies-per-capita

--PJ Geest (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi PJ Geest, I recently noticed your edit on Propoganda regarding an external video link. I struggle to understand why this video should be included in the article as although it is social-sciences communication it addresses a specific question and does not appear to be relevant to the actual encyclopedic entry. On questions relating to quantum physics or most natural/proper science topics, you don't find video links at the top showing the user Brian Cox videos that attempt to communicate the principle of the idea, rather you get (expect) a clear and rigorous explanation with perhaps some links to science communicators in the bibliography section. I think the same standards should apply in this instance. Could you please justify this inclusion? PS: I apologise if this comes across as terse or lacking tact, I realise you're an experienced editor while I am a novice so if there is something I've missed or overlooked then I'd be glad to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadke4 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sadke4, thanks for your remarks. I added already hundreds of video's like that and almost nobody complained. Mainly in Dutch (), but also in English (). There are also many videos in German which are used on the German wiki. Off course every video should be evaluated individually. Some videos are better suited for a certain article then others. What part of the propaganda video is not relevant to the entry, do yo think? You can also set an endtime for a video (and/or a start time). Would only showing a certain part of the video be more suitable do you think? For example, ending it at time 8:13, like is done in this example on the right and moving the video to Propaganda#Techniques. --PJ Geest (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi PJ Geest, thanks for your reply. I rewatched the lecture and now agree it is a relevant and informative inclusion on the Propoganda page. My central concern at the time was prioritisation of the video over other sources/lectures that cover similar ground. However, I found the Video in question was better presented and far more succinct than comparable sources. Again, appreciate the time you took to get back to me. Met vriendelijke groet Sadke4 (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Groen (political party), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Climate policy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I have had a read through your User:PJ Geest/sandbox#US tariff history. It would be a huge improvement. Applause.

At first sight I thought it was possibly too long but I couldn't see any obvious flab. I also think it important for an international readership to understand the historical basis for Trump's irrational belief that tariffs are a tax on foreigners and thus a saving to Americans.

I have marked a few items for your consideration. I tried to remember to use strike out and {{xt}} to mark suggested changes, but it would be wise to check the diff.

I suspect my note excerpting Irwin's bio is not MOS compliant and will have to go but I did it partly to emphasise the only significant weakness in the text: excessive reliance on a single source. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@JMF Thanks for the suggestions! I added the missing sources. It is not a complete excerpt of Douglas Irwin since there are also other sources and the strucure of the text is different compared to the Annual Review of Economics: it is more chronological. But I understand your point. I think I will also rewrite the tariff history of the UK and then I will use a wider variety of sources PJ Geest (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to Doughnut (economic model) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. You are right that in the section I added there were 2 sentences out of 15 that I did not paraphrase carefully. I was focused on content and neutrality and did not double-check this aspect sufficiently. I’ll make the necessary corrections and will take more care in the future to avoid copyright concerns. I appreciate the reminder and will keep this in mind going forward. --PJ Geest (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

On that article, I definitely agree that its very badly written, plus looking at it again four years later it seems to have been constructed wholesale, WP:SYNTH style, out of vaguely related sources. I would not object it for deletion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat No problem, with the later pattern of the user who started this article, it was maybe easier for me to spot what was wrong with the article. Maybe indeed I should nominate the article for deletion. PJ Geest (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RecardedByzantian (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)