User talk:Ereunetes

Hello, Ereunetes! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! MBisanz talk 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi, I reassessed the articles you requested. I think your expansion of Batavian Republic is impressive. I rated it B, but that is also because high level assessments (Good Article, A and Feature Article) require a more formal procedure.

• Good Article is a rating that is awarded by the official Good Article Nomination process which goes outside the projects and rests at Wikipedia central. I think the article is close to Good Article status if some attention is paid to tighten writing style (towards a more boring/more scientific style). You will have to apply outside the project. (Featured Article (FA) status has a similar procedure, but it is recommended to go through Good Article and peer review first as FA has high standards and the reviewers have a long backlog, and are not happy with articles that could benefit from addtional comments).
• A articles are relatively rare. They are classified between GA and FA, in general these are articles that a project has adopted and internally, through a process of peer-review tries to get to FA status. A requires a fomal. Multieditor within project review.

I have good hopes this article will go far, well done. Arnoutf (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rating and the compliment. I'll leave it to others to do any nominating :-) Anyway, I suppose some time is needed for other people to take a look at the article.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Samuel Story, and Vlieter Incident, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. I recently completed Etta Palm d'Aelders. Eight Articles of London coming up.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated Etta Palm d'Aelders, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on April 4, where you can improve it if you see fit. Also, please add more inline citations to the article, if appropriate. Thanks, PFHLai (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating the article. I took most of my facts from the Arboit online article. Unfortunately, that doesn't have page numbers. For that reason (and laziness) I gave a general refeence, except where appropriate (which turned out to be the final part about her run-in with the Dutch authorities at the end of her life).--Ereunetes (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still around, Ereunetes, even though I shouldn't be.... Anyway, the request for more footnotes was made for DYK purposes -- footnotes are required for the nomination. Thank you for the note about the removal of the tag. It's alright. The article is fine as is. Thanks. -- PFHLai (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Etta Palm d'Aelders, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bencherlite^Talk 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the assessment: Once you have finished working on it, or if you would like some input into it, then drop me a line. I was clearing out the Unassessed military history articles which is why I assessed it. It looks great so far!! Regards. Woody (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Theodorus Frederik van Capellen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Will you try to get Isaac Jan Alexander Gogel tok DYK as well? Punkmorten (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'd rather not. I noticed that a mention on DYK attracts vandals. I am grateful to the people that reverted the vandalisms on my other DYK-references, but still ...--Ereunetes (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herring Buss, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me that, I fixed a couple of errors. Red4tribe (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're mistaken: the original title of the article was "Oath of Abjuration", and it has never been at any other title. And I haven't touched the article since 2004 myself.

If you want to move the article, feel free to do so. As long as the article can be found using any of its names, I'm satisfied; the exact title of the page can be decided upon by people who know more about the subject than I do, and who care more about it. WP:RM describes how to move a page. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the referral page "Act of Abjuration", which you had put in place. Sorry about the misunderstanding and thanks for the instructions about moving the page.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Ereunetes,

Thanks! I admire your work too! I know it's not easy to write an article in another language. You right about the defaultsort, it's a force of habbit because not all wikipedias have defaultsort.

Keep up the good work! With the best regards, DutchDevil (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do reset my edit to the article. I was trying to add an English ref to be the basis of a Did you know hook. I will take back the proposal to have this article on the main page. Victuallers (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Willem IV van den Bergh, and Elbertus Leoninus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article and it has been nominated for DYK. Best of luck. Keep up the good work. Truthanado (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already? I just finished it. But thanks anyway.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rated it "no" on the references because it relies on one source for all the citations. If you could find another one or perhaps two to source them, then it would fly through. In terms of "coverage and accuracy", it was more about the coverage, than the accuracy. I have no qualms about its accuracy. Re-reading it, if you expanded the lead a bit per WP:LEAD, then it should pass the coverage criterion. Add an infobox ({{Infobox Military Person}}) and it should pass B-Class. If you have any more questions or want a re-assessment, then leave another note on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Welcome to wikipedia. You have done a good work in reverting the vandalism. No you are not in danger of 3RR. There is no need to be afraid of it. Trust your instinct if you are doing something wrong. Read more about 3RR. Also use the gadgets which is available at your disposal. Click on my preferences => and click on Gadgets. Has you can see there is loads of tools that can be useful not only in fighting against vandalism but also helping wikipedia. I mainly use Twinkle which is useful for fighting vandalism, Friendly if you are into welcoming people, HotCat which can simplify in adding categories and lastly RefTools which is very good when it comes to adding references. I love this tool. If you have any more question let me know. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your suggestions. I just added Twinkle to my toolbar. However, on reflection I think I can use my time better than keep patrolling against this anonymous Siborne cheering section (another one reared his ugly head tonight). I noticed that several other editors are keeping an eye on the articles in question, and I'd like to thank them for keeping up the good work.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your message! I was certainly puzzled by the behavior of the IP on your exceptional articles - so much so I tried that personalised message in an attempt to get him to communicate with us. I think there are enough people with an eye on the pages, and with the knowledge that their prior acts were deliberate, that any further disruptions will be quickly corrected. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the vandalism. I have the article under watchlist if it is removed i will added it back again and if it continue i can ask the admins to protect the page. Also please don't stop creating articles. Wikipedia is nothing if there are no writers. Keep up the good job. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply but I have to disagree:

• If you look closely you'll see that I did not "delete" the link to the "Perpetual Edict" but rather integrated it into the article. Good articles should have no "see also" links.
• I care neither for Dutch nor American conventions. I merely look for uniformity in the article where his first appearence is by the name of "Johan de Witt". But if I cared for these conventions, of course the Dutch one would come out last, as this encyclopedia is not written in Dutch.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Willem Benjamin Craan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also the people who spruced up the article. I am still learning new tricks this way:-)--Ereunetes (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Victor de Constant Rebecque, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 11:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and move the article to Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans (my contributions were too minimal o take the honour ;-). You've explained yourself more than sufficiently on the discussion page. The page history and discussion will be preserved under the new name. Afasmit (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ereunetes, I think you did an impressive job at Eighty Years' War: the article looks comprehensive and well-sourced. But while I do have some interest in the subject, I think there has been a slight misunderstanding: you may have meant to post your message on User:Arnoutf's talk page instead of mine. He has had a lot more involvement in Dutch Revolt and he is in fact the one who offered you those suggestions. Iblardi (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only intended to add the template, I must have got over enthusiastic as it was a bit short of a start Victuallers (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For my reaction to your message. Your current behaviour is not exactly the one that's being needed on wikipedia, imho. Kweniston (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted, strange :). Thanks for the contributions. Kind regards, Kweniston (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for any misstep I may have made in this process for your article. I will attempt to get some reviewing done today. H1nkles (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies required :-) But I think the warning-template I serendipitously discovered would come in useful for a frequent reviewer such as yourself.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun review of the article and I am putting my comments on the reassessment page. I am also doing copy editing, which is dangerous since I am not very familiar with the subject. So if my edits strip away the meaning, or are completely contrary to what is intended, please know that I'm doing it in good faith and I will trust that you will make the appropriate fixes to any "damage" I may cause. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that you were going to review the article and I am afraid editing the article at the same time confuses the two functions. I do appreciate attempts to improve the article textually, but a number of the edits you have already made change the meaning in a subtle way that I have difficulty agreeing to. Couldn't you limit yourself to indicating the points you question so we could discuss those? I won't start changing your edits richt away, but I reserve the option to do so at a later stage, where appropriate (of course I do not quibble about minor edits that are indeed of a textual nature, but you have to know what you are doing, so it is easy to commit bloopers). Please let me know when you are finished with your current effort and I'll take a more detailed look.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		In response to your comments on the GA Review for the Batavian Republic I hereby award you this barnstar. While our views may be different, you valued my comments, provided cogent and respectful responses, which encouraged discourse and is a great example of how a collaborative effort can make a difference. H1nkles (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you wrote the excellent Anglo-Russian Invasion of Holland, thanks for that. However, did you know there was already an article Expedition to Holland? Seems that a merger of the two would be in order. Regards, Jvhertum (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I didn't know as nobody calls it "Expedition to Holland" in the literature. I have looked at it but there is little to merge, as far as I am concerned. Just compare the two articles. I was reminded, however, to stipulate in my article that the Hereditary Prince was not a commander: the British would not allow his band of deserters to take part in the campaign :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could merge whatever there might be into your article, and then change Expedition to Holland into an automatic redirect to Anglo-Russian Invasion of Holland? Jvhertum (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there is also a Template:Campaignbox Expedition to Holland that needs fixing. Jvhertum (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly take care of the campaignbox, but how do I merge the articles? I am not that technical. Could you please give some pointers?--Ereunetes (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The campaignbox proved difficult also: when I attempted to edit Template:Campaignbox Expedition to Holland I got the Flanders Campaign box. Of course, I didn't trifle with that. I have therefore made a completely new campaignbox with all the relevant battles and put them on the relevant pages.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I have found the relevant information on the correct procedure to merge pages and affixed the required tags to the articles for the preliminary phase. So thanks.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't more helpful. Jvhertum (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Charles Fielding, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article doesn't state notability of subject.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. I dream of horses (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the template for reasons given on Talk:Charles Fielding. If anybody objects, I propose that we discuss it on that page.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Sometimes, when I new page patrol I forget that sometimes people don't publish an article in one go after patrolling article after article about people, organizations, etc. that truly aren't notable. --I dream of horses (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it would have been better if you had asked an administrator to help you swap "The Free Sea" and "Mare Liberum" in order to preserve the page histories rather than doing a cut-and-paste: see "Help:Moving a page" for more information on this. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You do see my problem, however (using the standard procedure did not work because the title was not accepted)? My question is now: how do I ask help from an administrator the next time?--Ereunetes (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why you need the help of an administrator. You can leave a message at "Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen", and an administrator should come along shortly and reverse the cut-and-paste job and restore the page histories. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a request on the page you indicated. Thanks.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying hello here. I very much like your contributions at the Waterloo page.--Joey123xz (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest a link from the [Vlieter_Incident] to the escape story of D.H. Kolff, Lieutenant Commander of one of the Batavian ships at the Vlieter Incident. The escape story is published here: http://www.kolff.nl/kolffen/his_1090.htm. I have no idea how the policy is on this, it's just a suggestion. 21:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans MvO (talk • contribs)

The policy is just to go ahead and edit the article. I have put in a new section "external links" and put the link to the page in it to save you some trouble. If you want to do it differently, please feel free to edit it. Anyway, thanks for the contribution.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for sending me those google links. I love such in depth fact sources- it is an utter pleasure using them to silence liars and frauds in history discussions. Unfortunately I'm not in Wiki alot and check in only on occasion too myself. But I hope you get this message! --Joey123xz (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:

• editors who are blocked
• anonymous IP editors
• editors who, despite ranking in the top three of edits to an article, have only a single edit to said article

This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Willem Bentinck van Rhoon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Regency and Ridder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links corrected--Ereunetes (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should we add a sentence on Killigrew to the Council of State of the Netherlands article? I'm uncertain. On the one hand it's clearly relevant. On the other hand it would give undue weight to Killigrew since no other council members are mentioned by name.~----

I don't think so. You'll notice the reference and wikilink to the list of all English members of the Council. I think that is enough. Otherwise all English members of the Council would have to be mentioned in the Council of State article, because there is no reason to single out Killigrew. But in that case there is an even a stronger case for mentioning all Dutch members also. That would be a lot of work :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Government of the Dutch Republic in exile 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/Government of the Dutch Republic in exile 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 template from the top of the article.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Osceola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quinsy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your contribution to history-related articles in general and, in particular, your handling of the Government of the Dutch Republic in exile article. (Hopefully a red link very soon) Keep up the good work! Stalwart111 04:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Treaty of Westminster (1654) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Lambert

No, I didn't. I added a link to John Lambert (general), so no disambiguation needed here. Do robots make mistakes?

OK, the wrong link was in the caption with the picture; I fixed this.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William I of the Netherlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of Fleurus

I fixed this.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Estates of the realm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Overlord (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

The page in question Overlord is not a pure disambiguation page, as it gives a definition of the concept of overlord at the beginning. It was this definition I needed to refer to. So if this is incorrect, I think the Overlord-page should be cleaned up. I left the link in place.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have removed them again - WP:OPENPARA is clear enough that places of birth/death should not be in the opening brackets. That is standard MOS, please do not restore them. GiantSnowman 19:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree there. I put an explanation on your talkpage. And I still think you are wrong. But I won't make a big deal out of it. You'll get tired soon enough and I'll put it back in a month or so :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where OPENPARA allows "places" but not "locations" - and FYI, they are the same thing. Also if you restore the edit in future then I will simply revert again; and if you continue to edit contrary to MOS then you will be blocked for disruption. GiantSnowman 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} This is the first time I have been threatened with blocking and I need some help from an administrator to tell me what my rights are. Is it usual that an editor starts threatening another editor in this fashion?--Ereunetes (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You used the {{Help me}} template, but asked a question that can only be answered by an admin. If you still need help, please add the {{Admin help}} template instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the new contributors help desk, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.Technical 13 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I am administrator. I threatened to block you in response to your own threats to disruptively edit and edit war. However, if another admin reviews this and feels I have been overly harsh then I am more than happy to retract and apologise. GiantSnowman 20:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I have not threatened an edit war; I have been the victim of an attempt at an edit war recently. But that is a different question. I certainly object to GiantSnowman acting as judge and jury in his own case, so I should like this threat of blocking to be reviewed by another administrator. I think it borders on vandalism to just delete information, because an admin thinks it violates some policy. It would be something different if that admin placed the information where he thinks it ought to be. I would not object to that. I have made very many contributions to wikipedia in the last few years and I had hoped to continue doing so. But if this is the way I am to be treated I'll find another hobby. Meanwhile, I'd like to know what the procedure is to counter arbitrary admin behavior. I would certainly like to lodge a complaint against GiantSnowman.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who responded to your original {{helpme}} request and having recently been blocked for disruptive editing myself, I would like to offer you some wisdom. I realize that you haven't been blocked yet; however, I think you should read the guide to appealing blocks, as I think it may help you understand how to compose you responses to prevent being blocked in the first place. You may feel as if you are a victim; however, that doesn't sway many other editors or administrators and I recommend you drop that stick. That being said, I do not know which edits on which article are in question here, however, GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) I don't see where WP:OPENPARA mentions anything about "places of birth/death should not be in the opening brackets," could you possibly be linking the wrong MOS causing some confusion here? WP:OPENPARA is about the lede paragraph of an article and specifically says, "The opening paragraph should have: Name(s) and title(s), Dates of birth and death, Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)." Technical 13 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ereunetes - you said you would restore your edit (contrary to MOS) in a month's time when you thought I would "get tired" of monitoring the article. That, to me, is a threat to disrupt. Where have I deleted information? I simply moved information to adhere to MOS. As stated above, I am happy to retract/apologise if another admin deems my earlier comment out-of-place; however, you should not make accusations of vandalism against me. Are you aware of WP:NOTVAND?

Technical 13 - the final paragraph of WP:OPENPARA states "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability; they should not be mentioned within the opening brackets." GiantSnowman 21:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped reading shortly after the bulleted list, my fault for not reading to the end. Can you tell me what the term "opening brackets" refers to, as I feel that I am missing a vital part of the context, as it is not linked or defined anywhere on WP:MOSBIO. (I still don't know what diff or what article this discussion is about, and am therefor neutral in that aspect, as I intend to stay at this point.) Technical 13 (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diff/article is this one. The opening brackets are "John Smith (1 January 1900 – 31 December 1999) was a ..." GiantSnowman 21:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical:The article in question is Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans‎. You may find the edits in question in its edit history. I think GiantSnowman is simply misinterpreting the policy he quotes, and even if he didn't life would be too short to change all articles that do not comply with his interpretation. That is why I jokingly wrote that he would soon tire of it.I promise I won't touch the article in question again. In fact I am sorry I ever wrote it. I think GiantSnowman should at least take a refresher course in admin behavior, because I also resent his slamming a template on it, apparently as revenge, after out first altercation. I would be happy to take the time to provide more citations, but not under these circumstances.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am interpreting the MOS entirely correctly. Other articles don't meet the MOS? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You think added a maintenance tag to an article that is almost entirely unreferenced as some kind of revenge against you? Laughable - and what ever happened to WP:AGF. GiantSnowman 21:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GiantSnowman, based on your definition of "open brackets," which I interpret as first sentence, the open brackets in that article is: "Anthonie (Antoon) Cornelis Oudemans Jzn (November 12, 1858 – January 14, 1943) was a Dutch zoologist." and there is no mention of birthplace there. According to your quoting of WP:OPENPARA above, "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability." This leaves the only question to be determined here as a matter of whether or not this information is "relevant to the person's notability," or not. Technical 13 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo there, please consider asking for a third opinion. In the wp:dispute resolution process asking for a wp:30 is used as the first step both for taking actions towards content and conduct disputes. Cheers.   M aurice   Carbonaro  07:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ereunetes, GiantSnowman is absolutely correct when he points out that the Manual of Style requires birth and death locations to be absent from the opening brackets. In honesty, I can't even see why you're arguing otherwise; the MOS is quite clear on this point. If you want to include that information, then do so in the lead or in an {{Infobox person}} template, where it is acceptable.

Threatening to issue a block if you continue editing disruptively is not inappropriate. "You'll get tired soon enough and I'll put it back in a month or so :-)" is a very clear statement of intent to continue in such a manner. To cut the whole story very short - you are in the wrong here, both regarding the edits and regarding the appropriateness of GiantSnowman's message. There's nothing wrong with being in the wrong - we all find ourselves there at some point - the take-home message is: calm down, move on, find something else to do. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My observations
  • Maurice

    WP:30 would not apply here because there were already 3 editors discussing the issue before you posted that.

  • Yunshui

    I'm thinking you may have overlooked my last statement where according to GiantSnowman's own definition of "opening brackets" to wit, "'John Smith (1 January 1900 – 31 December 1999) was a ...'" which I interpret to be the first sentence, Ereunetes' edit to add the place of birth was not in the opening brackets. To additionally add to that, it's not technically in the first paragraph either as there is a ¶ between that opening sentence and the place of birth that was added.

    I entirely agree with you on your point of "Threatening to issue a block if you continue editing disruptively is not inappropriate." However, I wouldn't say that statement of his is "entirely clear" as it ends in a smiley face that some may interpret as an attempt to convey some kind of wittiness or sarcasm. That being said, neither of those things belong in a conversation such as this as they most always get misinterpreted. I've suggested some reading for him about disruptive editing, the guide to appealing blocks, and recommended he drop the stick of him being a victim, as it is non-persuasive.

  • Ereunetes

    I would suggest that you reword the lede as such to include your information and not have it being too close to the beginning of the content as to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this longer-than-needed discussion:

  • Anthonie (Antoon) Cornelis Oudemans Jzn (November 12, 1858 – January 14, 1943) was a Dutch zoologist.

    Born the son of the noted Dutch astronomer Jean Abraham Chrétien Oudemans in Batavia, he was named after his grandfather the Dutch educator, poet and philologist Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans Sr. He often used the informal patronymic "Jzn" (for Janzoon) in his publications.

    He wrote his dissertation on flatworms, and in 1885 was appointed director of the Royal Zoological Gardens at The Hague.^[1] He is credited with the discovery of several insects and of a species of primate, the Black Crested Mangabey.

• Would that satisfy everyone? Technical 13 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point for clarity: "Ereunetes' edit to add the place of birth was not in the opening brackets." Actually, it was. Otherwise, this whole debate would have been rather pointless... no-one's suggesting that the POB shouldn't be in the article, just that (per the MOS) it shouldn't go there. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. The diff link that both Ereunetes and GiantSnowman pointed at was not the same as the one you just linked, it was this one, and my comments regarding "not in the opening brackets" were based on the diff they offered. Thank you for the clarification. Regardless, my suggestion above seems to be a consensually agreeable resolution, and I recommend you implement it Ereunetes as at very least a show of good faith. Technical 13 (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it better not to get involved in the above discussion. Now there seems to be a consensus about who was at fault, I just want to add the following: I have observed that in very many biographical articles in wikipedia birthplace and place of death have been and still are included in the brackets containing the dates of birth and death. So if I have sinned there are many others who do the same. This appears to be a rule that is honored in the breach by most editors, in other words. I regret having been sarcastic against my betters. Because I understand that being an administrator (something I have never aspired to) is of course much more important than just doing the work. (To avoid any misunderstanding: I am being sarcastic here again). At last count my total number of edits was 2409. I am therefore not without experience. And this fracas has not been my most happy experience. In fact it is very demotivating to be the subject of this kind of bureaucratic nitpicking. So I think I'll take a leave of absence effective immediately. I certainly won't touch the article that has been the subject of discussion. Feel free to make any edits you deem necessary yourself. I'll just finish what I recently started, because I feel enough responsibility not to leave unfinished business.--Ereunetes (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an accepted reasoning for doing things. That being said, I encourage you to go to those articles and fix them now that you know what the policies and guidelines on the process are. Perhaps a WP:WIKIBREAK is the right thing for you right now, if that is how you are so inclined. I would prefer that you don't think of yourself as the subject of any kind of bureaucratic nitpicking, and instead as a student to editors with tens of thousands of MW wiki edits (I only have a couple thousand on this wiki but 16.5K+ on my home wiki that I administrate). I'll attach a Teahouse invite below this message and encourage you to come to the Teahouse or hit me up on my talk page when you return from your wikibreak. I would be happy to help you improve your editing skills. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that GiantSnowman put an appreciable number of articles (if that is the correct designation) on wikipedia that have birthplaces in the Forbidden Zone. Typical Mote and Beam. I have made a start in removing such Transgressions, just to be helpful, of course. All per MOS; see WP:OPENPARA. Maybe I can be of use in that way. But for the rest, see my userpage...--Ereunetes (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at articles I created 7 years ago. Your edits here are WP:POINTy and becoming disruptive - why are you removing the information as opposed to relocating it? GiantSnowman 20:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did exactly the same you did. Are there different rules for GiantSnowmen and Eurenetai? What about WP:NOTVAND? The fact that the articles are a few years old does not seem relevant: they are still on wikipedia (despite serious notability issues). In any case the Oudemans article was several years old also. I therefore don't follow your reasoning. Don't you think you should start with yourself in enforcing the rules? "Snowmen living in glass houses" and such? But don't worry. If you are so thin skinned about tasting your own medicine, I'll leave it alone.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ereunetes, I STRONGLY recommend dropping the stick. Just make your edits, be useful and stop talking. You are making things worse for yourself and to be honest, that last comment, and the edits that it stems from, could be considered a personal attack, and I admire GiantSnowman's restraint at this point. You make another such comment and I won't be above placing a second warning here. (see below, the first one will be there shortly.) Technical 13 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which edit you reverted, but this is against your own policy. Do you think that WP:OPENPARA should be applied selectively, depending on who does the editing?--Ereunetes (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted all of them I could find and then went back and edited the article again to move the information to the end of the lede, which is what was agreed above is a fair place to put it. How is that against my own policy (which I am getting a kick of because none of the policies did I have any part of thinking up nevermind writting)? Technical 13 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ereunetes, on the Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans‎ article, I moved the POB from the opening brackets to the body - as MOS says it should be. You are removing valid information from articles for no reason - that is vandalism. As Technical 13 says, you are simply making this worse for yourself. GiantSnowman 08:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Ereunetes, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Technical 13 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. I'll say again, drop the stick. Technical 13 (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Ereunetes! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Battle of Menin (1793) article is very good. Please cite the last two sentences and I will assess it as a B-class article. Let me know when you are done. After that, you should submit it to the WPMILHIST contest at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Contest. Good luck. Djmaschek (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assessed your Siege of Landrecies (1794) article as Class B. Nice work. You may wish to submit it to the WPMILHIST contest. Djmaschek (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey- only 8 years too late! I just realized you sent me a message- back in 2010- lol, I hope you're still around and doing well. I have a Waterloo project coming up in which I would like to highlight other Waterloo 'enthusiasts' in some way. Keep in touch- ema il zerofire3x[At]gmail[d0t]com Joey123xz (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the honor! I have not been active (at least under this moniker) for several years, after I got thoroughly disgusted with the behavior of some wikipedians enforcing a "ban" on putting birthplaces in the lede of biographical articles, by mutilating several of my bio articles (see the polemic above on my talk page). So I have been "on strike". I was putting too much time into this hobby anyway. I wish you success in your Waterloo endeavors.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ereunetes. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batavian Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flushing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batavian Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yarmouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited States of Friesland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Proxy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ereunetes. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of treaties, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Arras (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just and FYI that I have translated Affair of Fielding and Bylandt into Dutch as nl:Treffen tussen Fielding en Van Bylandt and also added images to the original article. Jvhertum (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Congratulations on your work.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'm not clear about is the following: "France then started to exert pressure on the Dutch government to "defend its treaty rights" by selectively subjecting the Dutch cities, that supported the stadtholder in his opposition to taking countermeasures against the British "depredations," to economic sanctions." Could you please elaborate on this? Why would France subject cities that opposed Britain to economic sanctions? Thanks, Jvhertum (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says that France subjected the cities that supported Britain to economic sanctions, if you read it correctly. See also Patriottentijd for the relative positions of the stadtholder and his opponents toward Great Britain.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, thanks. I think it was the comma after "Dutch cities" that threw me. Jvhertum (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your attempt to improve on the text, but I am afraid "subjecting sanctions on" is not correct English. I have changed "subjecting" to "levying". Hope this is agreeable?--Ereunetes (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, "imposing" economic sanctions is better idiomatically, so I changed it to that.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks for that! Jvhertum (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making better use of the data I found, than I did. Creuzbourg (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: thanks for your message.

I believe I was thinking of another article and likely put an incorrect assessment on the Maria page; my apologies; the article looks very good. I can revert to unassessed on the talk if you prefer; or if you want to have someone else assess it, that's fine... again, my apologies. --FeanorStar7 19:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted; everybody makes mistakes. Please revert to unassessed. Maybe someone else will take it up later. Thanks.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done it myself.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ereunetes, thanks for the correction. I have made a simple correction, but would encourage you to build the item out further. Also, as a side issue, the military wiki you cited talks of grenade guns. Do you think they meant muzzle-loading, smooth bore, shell guns like the Columbiad? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my late reply, but I have more or less retired as a Wikipedia contributor and have not looked at my talk page for months. As to your question: I think "grenade gun" in the source I cited was simply a misnomer for Shell gun. Which brand the Dutch Indies government used in their Martello tower I don't know. Ereunetes (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Commissioners-General of the Dutch East Indies, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Batavia and French Empire. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is not hard and fast and set in concrete - you can, simply change the assessment to what you think is appropriate - there is no set rule as to the process (from what I have seen) - so it in one sense does not even need a conversation - simply change it! JarrahTree 00:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I'll simply undo the assessment then Ereunetes (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change is not undo - please, simply replace - items with no assessment at all are of no use to anyone for anything - the change suggested is to put something in there that approximates your assessment... even NA is better than blank JarrahTree 00:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have put in NA as you suggested as a a temporary place holder. Must be replaced after I have finished with the article. Ereunetes (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for very different way at doing things, try looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evad37/rater and what it entails... JarrahTree 01:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that link. I am normally wary of assessments in general, but this might be a promising alternative. Ereunetes (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are far too generous and particular in your reply at my talk page dank u!

The item that I was told was in old (maybe the inference was difficult which I did not pick up on correctly):

https://anu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma991013951649707631&context=L&vid=61ANU_INST:ANU&lang=en&search_scope=MyInstitution&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=LibraryCatalog&query=any,contains,imogiri&offset=0

I may have totally misunderstood the rationalisation about the language used in the item.

JarrahTree 04:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is tshe translation. "GRAPH

Monograph of the Solosche enclaves Pasargede and Imagiri, located in the Residence Jogjakarta, also containing a description of the Jogjasche landscapes of the same name.

Bevervoorde, WF Engelbert van.; Royal Institute for Language, Land and Ethnology (Netherlands). Miss (H472)

1904

Details

Title

Monograph of the Solosche enclaves Pasargede and Imagiri, located in the Residence Jogjakarta, also containing a description of the Jogjasche landscapes of the same name.

Creator

Bevervoorde, WF Engelbert van.

Royal Institute for Language, Land and Ethnology (Netherlands). Miss (H472)

Subject

Pasar Gede, Java

Yogyakarta (Indonesia : Special Region) -- History

Imogiri (Indonesian)

Surakarta (Indonesia) -- History

Publisher

Yogyakarta

Creation Date

1904

Format

Holograph.

Note

OLD RECORD.

K. Institute for Language, Land and Ethnology, H472.

Described in HJde Graaf, Catalog of the western manuscripts of the K. Instituut... The Hague, M.Nijhoff, 1963, p. 78.

Microfiche. Zug, Inter Documentation, 1973?

13 sheet.

Lacks illustrative material.

"

Solo is the old Dutch name for Surakarta. The Susuhunan of Surakarta was called the "Emperor of Solo" in the days of Herman Daendels, Stamford Raffles, and Godert van der Capellen. He was officially "sovereign" in what the Dutch called the Vorstenlanden, so not under Dutch direct rule. On a personal note, my father was in the Dutch cavalry (stil with horses) before the War, and a colleague of his became a member of the personal life guard of the then Susuhunan (also on horseback; this was in 1936 or so). So the Susuhunan was still sovereign. See for what happpened during the 1945-1949 years Pakubuwono XII. It is a complicated story. I had heard of it, but got the details wrong.

You see in the Dutch text a few examples of the old spelling. For instance "Solosche" would nowadays be spelled "Solose". But otherwise there is little difference with 21th century Dutch. Ereunetes (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Commissioners-General of the Dutch East Indies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dirk van Hogendorp (1761–1822), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ensign.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anthony Colve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surinam.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cornelis Evertsen the Youngest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Beachy Head.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Reconquest of New Netherland at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a reply, but I had to put in my "signature" manually, so the submit time is missing. Ereunetes (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your first DYK nomination. If you hope a nomination will be published on a particular date, it is best to mention that in the nomination. Then the editor who approves the nomination (or an uninvolved editor) can move it to the Special occasion holding area to highlight when it should be published (you may have to ask them to do this). I have promoted the nomination to Prep Area 6 (now Queue 6), which should be published at 20:00 New York time on 9 August, I hope that is close enough. TSventon (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I had mentioned the 350th anniversary on 9 August in my original "hook". but that was the first thing that was eliminated ("superfluous"; still nobody, including myself, apparently did the math without being prompted :-). No matter. I don't think we could do anything more. Thanks for your trouble. Ereunetes (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did the math(s), but somehow got it wrong. Reviewers have a lot of rules to bear in mind, so if you don't mention something in the nomination, it is likely to get missed. TSventon (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my original nomination. But that is all water under the bridge. Let's hope it will make Wednesday's DYK Ereunetes (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your original nomination didn't say "Please can you run this on the anniversary, 9th August". TSventon (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True. I left that to the imagination. If there is ever another occasion for me to submit this kind of nomination, I'll have learned my lesson :-) Ereunetes (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Reconquest of New Netherland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on 9 August 1673 a Dutch naval squadron reconquered New York from the English? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reconquest of New Netherland. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Reconquest of New Netherland), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ereunetes.

I am back from a little vacation so I will be active again. I have seen you haven't stopped yourself and made the article on Grovestins' raid. I was planning to that, but you did it better that I probably would have. I will probably add info to it from Wijn's book. I am now permanently in possession of the two last parts of his 3 books on the War of the Spanish Succession. So if you need info on the years of 1706-1715 I can always try to help you out. Anyway, his book includes a great map of the raid wich you can see here [1]. Do you think that we can include that one? Or do you know how to make a map based on that one? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't get into the link with the map you wanted me to see. But by all means a map of the route taken would be very useful. I don't know how to make it, or I would have done it already. I'll keep your offer on help with Wijn/Staatsche Leger in mind. Thanks. Ereunetes (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should do it[2] DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a nice map, but it would need some photoshopping, I think. Did you photograph it yourself? Is it a map that is included in Wijn? If so, it should be out of copyright for Wikimedia purposes, so you could upload it. But before you do, I have one objection, and that is that the map shows the shape of the route, but misses the context. If you go to the article you'll see that I included the wikilinks to a number of communes on the route. Those articles have an {infobox French communes} that uses this file . This is a blank map on which you should be able to project the individual locations. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to do that as I don't understand the template. But maybe you are smarter. If you can figure it out, maybe you could project the locations on it, not one by one, as the individual articles do, but all at once, in which case we would have a map of the route taken. (there are similar blank maps for the locations outside France). What do you think? Ereunetes (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't photograph it myself, altough I could do that now. If I would use the map I would crop it. Is that what you mean by photoshopping?

I agree that context would be nice. Not sure either how that template works, but I can try to figure it out. Will probably take some time tho. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping and somehow getting rid of the crease in the photo. But I think it would be better to transpose the route to the blank map somehow. Ereunetes (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make you aware that Willem Jan Knoop wrote extensively about the War of the Spanish Succession (and other conflicts) in Krijgs- en geschiedkundige geschriften van W.J. Knoop: Volume 8 [3], but maybe you already knew ;). All his volumes are pretty interesting btw DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in Knoop (whose article I wrote back in 2008) is primarily as a foil for the William Siborne adepts and the Waterloo controversy. And boy, was I successful :-) If you look at the oldest revisions of the Knoop article, you'll find that a few Siborne fanatics were repeatedly trying to censor me by deleting the stuff about Siborne (mostly anonymously, of course). An epic edit war, in other words. Those were the days :-) Ereunetes (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I just looked at it. I already was aware that Dutch editors have fought quite hard to get a balanced wikpage for the battles of Waterloo and Quatre Bras (which still needs some work). I read all the archived discussions of Waterloo, after the most recent discussion on that page. Some people don't like it when you add a missing perspective. I experienced the same problems when I started to add Dutch sources to pages about the Wars of Louis XIV.

Anyway, it is pretty fun to put the work of Knoop next to that of Churchill. Knoop pretty much hates everting about Marlborough, while Churchill will always find an excuse for his shortcomings. On Sicco van Goslinga they also disagree. Churchill questions his military abilities (as you wrote on Goslinga's page), while Knoop praises them DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 2008 the English Wikipedia was still the preserve of the Siborne idiots, who take Siborne's historiographic fabrications as Gospel. Especially the howler that Van Bylandt's brigade was still on the forward slope when the big French artillery barrage started and hence "suffered terribly". If you look at a new book on the battle of Waterloo, first look in the index where the author thinks that brigade was placed at that point in time, and throw it away if he thinks it was on the forward slope. Because Knoop already in the 1840s pointed out that this was a canard in his critique of Siborne's famous book about the battle, that had then only recently been published. On the talk-page of the Waterloo article you'll find (probably archived) some people who excoriate David-Hamilton-Williams for having dusted off the work of Knoop on the matter. How dare he! Lettng down the side (of the British chauvinists)! But we have our own chauvinists, too. And Knoop was one of them. Take the suspicious "Napoleon-quote" from Collot we debated on the talk-page of William III. I referred you there to the otherwise unexceptional article by Knoop in the Nieuwe Militaire Spectator. He starts that article by whining about the fact that so many foreign historians of his time deprecate William's qualities as a General. But who cares? The French are known for their chauvinism, after all. They were always going to tear down the one statesman that almost singlehandedly frustrated "Louis-le-Grand"'s World-Domination scheme. And Collot posibly fabricating a positive quote from Napoleon about William III is also rather pitiful. Because who cares what Napoleon, that mass-murderer almost on a par with Adolf Hitler (Louis is a good third, by the way in the mass-murdering stakes), thinks about a man whose boots he wasn't worthy to lick? You have to be careful about the people you want to sing your praises :-) Ereunetes (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But we have our own chauvinists, too. And Knoop was one of them.

For sure. Knoop often makes me laugh, because of the way he writes. His article on the Battle of Ekeren starts with 2 pages of explaining why Marlborough sucked (which is a rare standpoint). His work is still very valuable tho. I haven't found a single historian for example who has written so extensively about Seneffe and Saint-Denis.

And about Collot. Even if he lived in the 19th century I find it doubtfull that he would make up such a quote. Napoleon did also recognize the skill of De Ruyter, even if he frustrated French ambitions. And do we have any reason to believe that Collot did such things? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it would never have occurred to Collot to make up things. He may very well have thought he had read the quote somewhere, but forgot where, or he didn't check it sufficiently, just like the other Dutchmen who copied him (This happens to me all the time :-) But the fact remains that the quote appears to be untraceable in the literature where it would have to originate, even with the help of Google (while I could easily trace the Dutch examples, even if they appeared in learned tomes, written in Latin). So, unless you manage to produce chapter and verse of where Napoleon wrote or said this, I would stay clear of this, if I were you. Otherwise no doubt some French editor will swoop down on you triumphantly, like a Napoleonic Eagle :-) Ereunetes (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not afraid of the 'grooten vogel' as he was called here. No but seriously, I don't think the chance is big that he made up the quote or entirely misrepresented it, but if somebody strongly opposes including the quote I won't die on that hill. I will try to do some more investigation tho DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you find it, please tell me. Ereunetes (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a number of copyediting on the Dutch Brigade (Peninsular War) article. Some of them on English, readability, but also a number on undue level of detail, and non neutral tone of voice. While it was not bad at all - I tried to bring it up a notch - Did not make it to the end though (time ran out). Can you quickly check whether I unconsciously changed the contents of the story (particularly in the readability edits). I think it could move up a grading level once such edits are done, but sadly I am now too involved to move it up myself. Best Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sicked you on the other Dutch Brigade: King's Dutch Brigade, but De gustibus nil disputandum, as far as your copy edits on the one in French service are concerned. Somebody else beat me to correcting your typos. So I limited myself to putting in a wikilink to explain your "English" English "carry the honour" to my unsuspecting compatriots (they'll have to think away the "u" in "honour" themselves). Also you accidentally augmented the strength of the brigade to 2220, but I took out the supernumerary 20. But that is nitpicking. I am truly curious if this tinkering will actually bring a higher grade. I am skeptical, but who knows. If it really works, you may in future copy edit all my articles :-) Ereunetes (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and typos --- yes if I make many edits at once typos tend to creep in, especially with online editing. Change of number was also more a typo than intended. But to be frank - I am not sure this alone will bring this one to a higher level. The article as is, remains a bit overly patriotic (I tried to tone down as you may have noticed) and overly rely on listing names of rather unknown commanders (which I left in) to make for pleasant reading. Of course grading is not everything and getting the project to more readable level makes the topic more relevant to readers (and hence more relevant). Will try to find time to look at the rest soon but very busy in real life right now. Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Patriotism" is in the eye of the beholder. The interesting thing about both "Dutch Brigades" is that they fought on opposite sides during at least one of the "Coalition Wars" (I lost count :-) that make up the "Napoleonic wars". So to many 19th-century Dutch historians, Orangist to a man, the "French" one consisted of traitors and the English one consisted of "the good guys" (even though they were ready to fight against their own countrymen). So, as I am not biased against the "French" version, there are quite a lot of Dutch wikipedians (who still prefer to speak of the "Franse tijd" instead of the Batavian Republic, or (even worse) the Kingdom of Holland), who consider my "lenient" attitude not "patriotic" at all. (In this context: about the time I wrote both articles, I had to fight off a Wikipedian who insisted on writing articles about a " government in exile" led by stadtholder William that appeared to be modeled on the Dutch government in exile during WWII. I thought it was complete fantasy on his part, but apparently here in the US there are certain publishing houses (I suspect in places where third or fourth generation Americans of Dutch descent are numerous) that publish serious "historical" literature of this kind, that he was able to cite.

In other words, if you deplore my "patriotic" language, could you be a bit more specific? Am I too pro-Batavian, or too Orangist? Is it even possible to be so "neutral" that it would satisfy either side?

As to the "unknown commanders" in the "Spanish" Dutch Brigade: whose fault is that? I think we are over-reliant on Chassé, who is the only slightly better known Dutch commander on the scene. I think instead of complaining about unknown Dutch commanders, it might be a better idea to produce at least a few biograpical articles to make them better known (and so we could give wikilinks to those articles. I am sure both Van der Aa and Blok/Molhuysen have a lot of matrerial that could make writing such articles a cinch).

In your comments on the "English" Dutch Brigade article you complained about lack of sources and references for the article. That is of course, because there is so little available on these Dutch "Don Quichotes". Even though they were the eventual "winners" (it is astounding how many of the officers serving at Waterloo had their start in this brigade), they apparently later had little taste for writing their memoires about their experiences. So I had to make do with what I could scrape together on the internet. But that was ten years ago. Much more can be found now. A good example is the work by De Bas and Wommersom on the Waterloo Campaign. When I wrote my article on the Battle of Quatre Bras for the French wikipedia (in 2013 also; it was a busy year), I had to use my own antiquarian copy of the first volume of this book. Nowadays, if you look up that same article you'll find an excellent online copy of the same work that someone else later added. Another example: "Het Staatsche Leger", also by De Bas was not available online ten years ago. I had to go to the Library of Congress in Washington DC to consult it. In my Christmas vacation :-) Nowadays at least part of it is available online in Google books. So, who knows what we can now unearth?

Finally, one of the edits you made was to change my vernacular English to a highly technical term, no doubt familiar to the English military history cognoscenti, namely "carry the honours". I was duly impressed, as I didn't know the expression myself. So I immediately looked it up in (where else?) Wikipedia and found only two hits. As you wrote "honours" with a "U" I immediately inferred that it was not an American phrase. Now, in my view Wikipedia is there to answer questions. Not to create new ones. So I put in a wikilink to one of the articles where the phrase is used. But on reflection I think even that was not a good idea. Because I know that the Dutch army adopted a lot of English practices after WWII, among which also letting still existing regiments "continue the traditions" of regiments that have been merged, or even completely abolished. But I am not sure that was the case around 1810? Ereunetes (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]