User talk:Arnoutf/Archive2006

This is the ARCHIVE of my talk page for 2006.
Please do not edit this page, edits will be reverted.

_Arnoutf

Welcome!

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

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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! deeptrivia (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking

Hi, and (repeated) welcome to wikipedia! Good edit to oil paint, but I have a constructive critisicm. This is a really small thing, but to someone who does a lot of maintenance work (as opposed to writing content) lii me, it's important.

Only link the first instance of a word in every article. Tempera was linked in a higher section already. The reason that this is important is that, in the event of a change required to that link, it only has to be found once per article. It can drive you mental in a really long article if a common phrase is linked lots of times.

Sorry to be so picky, but that's just me. Keep up the good work.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I'll be careful not to make the same mistake in the future --Arnoutf 13:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Vance page

Arnoutf, I was the one who made the comment in the Vance Integral Edition section which you reacted to. I am well aware that conflicts should be resolved in the discussion page. If you had looked there you would see that I have been struggling, for weeks, to resolve them. In fact I am up against a set of determined vandals, and I need help.--PaulRhoads 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VWN en WCN

Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, Effeietsanders 25 feb 2006 12:27 (CET)

==Arbitration request==

I would like to inform about the Arbitration request concerning the long discussion on Talk:Dutch language.

[The link to the Arbitration request will follow soon, as I have to inform you before posting]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Sander_on_Talk:Dutch_language

Sander 10:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I made a comment to your vote at Talk:Creation according to Genesis#Proposing split. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 11:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eighty Years' War Battles

I came across a template of yours created very recently, and it looks ver much like a more compact and simpler version of "mine" also created recently Template:Eighty Years' War.

Which one whould be best, or should we make a brand new one? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 12:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eighty Years' War/test

Aaargh, the {{inuse}} tag was put there for a reason! I just spent two hours rewriting the test page, only to find that you've been rewriting it as well. Please stop for a while, I am going to overwrite your changes and then reapply them. Piet 10:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soory my fault, don't bother putting too muhc time in reapplying mine as I see your edits have the same purpose as mine, a lot of text editing; so no need to reapply mine. I will have a go at the text tonight or later, to see if I think something is left out Arnoutf 11:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "Spanish interests" part of the "Background" section because most of the information was repeated elsewhere in the article. Most of your changes to this section have been applied to other sections. What I didn't add was calling Philip II a fanatic catholic. Probably correct, but so was his father I think. And so were the calvinists. I would leave it out, the times being what they were, most people had to be fanatics. I've removed the inuse tag now, so you can go ahead. Piet 11:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template

Hi, and can I thank you for welcoming users to Wikipedia! Just a quick note, the standard welcome message is at {{subst:welcome}}, so instead of copying and pasting, you can simply type {{subst:welcome}}~~~~. Keep up the good work! -- cds^(talk) 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks couldn't find the template I was sure there was! Arnoutf 18:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on 80 years war

So, you can added more commander who I dont know, but William and Philip was the most famous commander in the war. Thank you Murderman 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Way of St James - External Links - removal of link to Camino Santiago de Compostela

I am sorry your saw my photographs as just a photo album. The site is intended to display the beauty of the Camino and the efforts of the pilgrims who walk great distances to Santiago de Compostela. The fact the www.csj.org.uk, the main source of information for pilgrims intending to walk one of the Caminos, links to my site would strongly suggest that this is an informational site, not a photograph album.If you had walked the Camino and could understand the effects I do not think you would have made the same decision. I would like your agreement to repost the link. Thanks --- With further thought I have decided your decision was out of order - I am now going to to repost the link madmaxii 23:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please join!

I'm currently trying to get a Dutch military task force started, would you join us? From what I've seen on the Eighty years war article, you could most certainly provide a (more than) worthy contribution.

If you're interested, and I hope you are, please drop a note at this talk page Cheers, Rex 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand

Thanks. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nieuw Zeeland

hoezo speculatief ? uit eigen ervaring weet ik, dat een aardig aantal nieuw zeelanders niet weten waar de naam vandaan komt, en letterlijk dachten dat het iets met 'zeal' te maken had. dom, maar waar. tee 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rev on The Netherlands

"(revert. Link to benin is not relevant for this section)" The contents of the removed part was the only other country in the world which has a split capital/seat of government situation, which is Benin. As the section of the added info was "Capital" I would say it is very relevant, as this is a dual uniqe situation in the world, so why did you remove it? Also note that there would be no viable other place to put this information regarding the link between Benin and The Netherlands in this respect. _{(remark by anon User:82.217.136.91 Oct 5 2006)}

The situation on Benin has no relation with that in the Netherlands, so it is a trivial fact. Because of the short length of the section, adding such a trivial fact would imply some conceptual connection between the states of the Netherlands and Benin; while the occurence of these two instances are stricty coincidental. If there is any place in an article that would be the Capital of the Netherlands article. A better place to open this discussion would have been at the talk:Netherlands page rather than on my personal talk page. Arnoutf 08:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC) PS Please sign your remarks using ~~~~[reply]

Dutch not a Germanic people?

Hi. Care to elaborate who doesnt see them as a Germanic people, for the benefit of what group? That's quite a risky assertion. Ulritz 14:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion and section in Germanic people article that explicitly refrs to Germanic as a historic ethnicity only, no longer to be used on contemporary ethnic groups. Arnoutf 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I would rather see some scholarly sources that make reference to this? Ulritz 14:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't have those. Lacking those I think we should for now go on internal consistency within Wikipedia. but of course if the Germanic peoples article changes (with good references of course) this can change with it. Arnoutf 14:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

As you know, a dispute has been going on for some while between me and User:Ulritz. I feel you are also involved and invite you to say you share. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Ulritz

Rex 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk FloNight 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

Please do not accuse me of trolling again, if I were trolling I would be so much more efficient, of course, that entire section on the Dutch Linguistic Map would have also been finished so much faster if User:Rex Germanus has simply answered the question instead of questioning my intelligence and treating me like a child. Ameise -- chat 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry about that. I removed the sentence from my own remark in the Dutch language pageArnoutf 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ameise -- chat 12:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-Renaissance art movement

Hi you voted Weak Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultra-Renaissance art movement per User:Buridan's vote. Please read my comments. You might want to reconsider your vote. utcursch | talk 03:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying, of course it is not really a vote, but anyway I had a look. I see you objection but give them the benefit of doubt and keep my weak keep up. Arnoutf 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Way of St. James link removed

The last link you removed from the way of St. James site you said was a commercial site. I looked at it carefully and it looked to have a lot of useful information in it. It did not look like a commercial site mainly to me.--Filll 15:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry; I saw all the Amazon buy here logos and thought it was. You are right though, I put it back on Arnoutf 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

social psychology

Hello Arnouft. I'm happy to see that I have company in editing the social psychology (psychology) page. A few days ago I posted a short message in the discussion area about reorganizing the page. I think the article has become overly long, unwieldy, redundant, and disorganized, with all the different editors and viewpoints, and recent "breakup" of psychology and sociology. I fear that it will become increasingly more detailed and convoluted if it continues on its current course. Thus, I'm planning some major revisions of the theory and concept areas, and I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on this. Best regards, Jcbutler 16:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on revert parole. They are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, they are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on probation for one year. They may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All blocks and bans and are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srik e it ^{(Talk | Email)} 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion passed for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

A motion has been passed for the case linked above.

The anonymous editor who edits from the 194.9.5.0/24 range and was also a part to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz shall be subject to the same restrictions as Ulritz and Rex Germanus for edit warring at involved articles. See #Ulritz_placed_on_Probation and #Ulritz_placed_on_revert parole for the applicable restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome mess.

Hi Arnout,

Laat ik op deze manier een boodschap voor jou achter?

Groet,

Sippin Soda 21:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja inderdaad, maar dat is verder niet nodig. Arnoutf 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnout,

Thanks for your reply, and yes, the "help me" was indeed about how to post a message, so I won't need any further help from others right now. If I do need help, can I get back to you? You appear to be an experienced Wikipedian... I'm currently changing jobs so I won't have much time the next few weeks, but I do intend to get back and improve the Rotterdam page (for starters). I think I saw somewhere that the Rotterdam page was not considered grade A, so there's still work to do. Hope you appreciated my edits so far.

Best regards, Sippin Soda 11:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Welcome message

Dank voor het hartelijke welkom. Ik heb al verschillende bijdragen geleverd aan de nederlandstalige Wikipedia, maar daar niet zo'n welkom gekregen. Vraag: hoe doe je dat, binnen enkele uren na het inleveren van mijn engelstalige bijdrage ben ik al gesignaleerd als nieuweling. Hoe werkt dat? Betekent dit dat je mijn bijdragen ook inhoudelijk hebt gezien? Hoe dan ook, dit vriendelijke gebaar wordt door mij zeer gewaardeerd. Ook de links zijn handig, die pagina's kende ik nog niet allemaal. Encyo 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb niet al je edits gezien, maar bij de pagina's die ik volg probeer ik als ik bij een editor een rooie link naar 'talk' zie even te kijken of het een nieuwe editor (en geen vandaal) is. Zo ja, dan zet ik {{subst:welcome}}~~~~ op zijn/haar pagina. En dan komt die welkomstboodschap vanzelf. Arnoutf 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotterdam Image

The professional photographer answered my e-mail and is willing to cooperate and donate a picture. How do we best protect his copyrights? Sippin Soda 12:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tweede Kamer

Hoi Arnout, ik zag dat je mijn bewerking op Tweede Kamer teruggedraaid hebt. Maar die kiesdrempel is wel degelijk van belang voor de Tweede Kamer, omdat er voor andere verkiezingen (gemeente, provincie, Europees Parlement) ook restzetels verkregen kunnen worden als minstens 75% van de kiesdeler behaald wordt. De kiesdrempel is dan dus lager dan de kiesdeler. Bij de Kamerverkiezingen móet een partij 100% van de kiesdeler halen voor de eerste Kamerzetel, dus is de kiesdrempel altijd 0,67% van het aantal geldige stemmen. Diemietrie 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but in that case it needs to be discussed in more detail, I am not sure the introduction is the best place; I added this including a bit on remaining seats in the election section. Arnoutf 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Je mag op je eigen pagina wel Nederlands schrijven hoor, beetje onzin om onderling Engels te gebruiken. Ik heb de paragraaf over de verkiezingen wat herschikt, zodat de informatie in een logische volgorde bij elkaar staat. Ik denk dat het in de tekst inderdaad beter uitgelegd kan worden. Hopelijk kan het zo je goedkeuring wegdragen. ;-) Diemietrie 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weight of botafumeiro

This is very difficult to determine. Every source gives a different weight. I have found weights of 40 Kg, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 60, 65,...etc kilograms. And none of the sources seem very reliable to me, frankly. There is a published paper on the thurible, but I do not have it in front of me and even that I am not too sure about.--Filll 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message II

Thanks for your welcomemessage. I've updated my page a bit (one line text, and added the box). Since you're doing a lot of work on the 80yw I've read, perhaps you can help me out. I've always wonderd why some dutch ships used a 'double' flag (red-white-blue-red-white-blue)? (See the first picture in the 80yw article.) Some say its to indicate that there is an admiral onboard, but i haven't found any prove of that. (Accually, there is a flag for that, but it's not the 'double' flag.) I decided not to post this on the 80yw article, as it didn't have mucht to do with that. Thanks again for your welcome on my user talk page. :) Hfodf 19:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC) PS Sorry for the accidental edit on your archive page.[reply]

Actually I have no idea about the double flag. As far as I know it has nothing to do with admirals on board. Perhaps it is because the flag was not fully official at that time, perhaps as from this the the Royal Netherlands Navy jack evolved. Perhaps because the image is not historically correct but rather a romantisised schoolplate from the 19th century. Interesting point, but perhaps better placed with the navy than with the 80yrs war Arnoutf 20:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked on the Dutch and English talk page Talk:Flag of the Netherlands. Meanwhile I've found a painting where both the 'regular' and 'double' flag is pictured, and by chance, a game that uses the 'double' flag to depict the Dutch Navy. I'm unfortunate in finding more paintings, but I'm quite sure that there are many more painings with the 'double' flag, as I had some intrest in this about one year ago. (Even asked the Dutch service 'Aladin', they didn't provide a satisfying answer.) Anyway, happy hollidays and thanks for the pointer.

parapsychology criticism

I've revised a paragraph in light of your analysis on the talk page. See what you think now Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better although the whole section would still benefit from a less emotional and more scientific / methodological style. Arnoutf 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]