User talk:Arnoutf/Archive2007 3

Op. on Institutions page

Hey, sorry to bother. I've just done a small rewrite of Institutions of the European Union and want to head it towards GA. I think there ought to be more on something but I can't think what or where to find such information. If you have a spare moment, could you do me a favour and take a gance at it and tell me if you think of something that needs to be talked about. Thanks. - J Logan ^t: 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Question on the AFHRA

As the original author of the 840th Air Division article, I read your comments at WP:MILHIST with an obviously biased eye; however, my question is more for me to understand your reasoning for something you wrote. You mentioned that the AFHRA, as an U.S. Air Force organization, automatically fails as a primary source. Why is that? By the same logic, the U.S. Army's equivalent (whatever it may be, to be honest I don't know) historical record-keeping agency could not be used as a primary source for Army units, and so on for the US Navy and Marines. I'm not upset or anything, just a bit confused (nothing new) and a bit concerned that I may be doing something wrong by including the historical Air Divisions in Wikipedia. It has kind of been my pet project for the last couple of months.... Thanks, and I look forward to discussing this further with you! - NDCompuGeek 17:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My objection was that I had some serious doubts about the notability of the division.

For a topic of an article to be 'notable' it requires a source reporting about that topic that is not related to the topic (sorry cryptic sentence). In other words: If there is no mention of Random object X anywhere Random object X is obviously not notable. This remains the case if there is only mention of Random object X on the website of the manufacturer of the object. Translated to this case. USAF probably has records on all its personell. That does not mean that referring to the archives of USAF makes an airman notable. That is basically my objection to the use of an AFHRA source as single source to establish notability of a USAF unit.

Once notability is estabishled an internal source is fine with me; as much information is probably only to be found on such sources.

Summarising, my comment was more about notability than validity of the source to support an already accepted notable topic. No need to change/delete the source, only don't use it as a 'claim to fame'

PS. Since I posted my comment you may have noticed that it was claimed that wing size air units maybe considered notable without supporting evidence. Arnoutf 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I noticed that about the wing thing. In some ways, I agree (most "host units" are wings), but then again, there are a LOT of wings (I believe the number is +900, but I'm not sure of that). As for notability, there were some divisions that I ran across that I was even wondering why the AFHRA included them, their active time-span was so short!

I also (now) understand what you meant with single-source notability: No major unit decorations + no involvement in any famous (or infamous) actions or operations + no third-party documentation = no notability. At least that's the way I understand it....

Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me, and for being so pleasant! - NDCompuGeek 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I would like to award you this barnstar for taking another user "under your wing" and taking the time to teach me a bit about notability - a very important part of the Wikipedia process. Dank U! NDCompuGeek 07:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new list

Hello. I'm considering translating this list from German, but I have two questions with which you may be able to help. First: should I make a separate list, or should it be inserted here? Second: if I do make the new list, what should I call it? Is "List of monarchs of the Netherlands" all right? Or could I use the simpler "List of Dutch monarchs"? Thank you for your advice. Biruitorul 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the list you are referring to should translate as "rulers of the Netherlands" not Monarchs which is exclusively used for kings and queens (which the Netherlands did not have before the 19th cntury). I think this already answers your question, the list contains non-monarchs (the staatspensionarisen, but even the stadholders do not qualify). Thus I am pretty sure the list should not be in the monarchy article.

There are some other things though in the German list which complicates the matters. In the early republic stadholders were appointed (usually for life; and from the house of Orange) for each of the separate provinces (often one stadholder was appointed stadholder over more than one province, but in principal there could be as many as seven) by the states general (something like a modern parliament) as regents in charge of daily business and as military leaders. Generally the Stadholder of Holland is the most important one, and these are the ones given in this list. Frisia for example has often had another stadholder. So the dominance of the Holland stadholder over the Netherlands is more a de facto then an official case.

But even the stadholder as ruler is more how it worked out then an official bit of law. The states general had different powers and had a fair share of the rule (after all, the states had the power to appoint or not appoint a stadholder). Officially the states general were represented by the pensionaries of each of the different Netherlands (comparable to the many stadholder offices). In practic the pensionary of Holland was the leader of these. When there was disagreement between the Stadholder office and the States General, the States could decide not to appoint a stadholder at all (this happened for example during the rule of de Witt). Officially nothing changed in the power of the pensionary (or the states general), only the states general now also had to fill in the duties of the Stadholder (which in peace time were very limited).

Needless to say this complex dual responsibility between the house of Orange and the States General caused a lot of friction of the centuries. The Oranges tried to consolidate their power in the 18th century and became hereditary stadholders (i.e. they were no longer appointed by the SG but inherited the title) and it is quite possible that the frustration concerning this coupe led the republicans to put their fate with the French revolution and asking for support to overthrow the Oranges to create the Batavian republic.

A long story, but in short, the leadership issue of the Netherlands is very, very complex. Be carefull with such simple lists. Arnoutf 07:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that very thorough explanation. I did have some notion of the complexity of the situation - I was the creator of the templates at the bottom of this page - but having now consulted with ypu and received a fuller understanding of what's involved, I will refrain from creating the list for the time being. Biruitorul 14:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you for your comments! Please do not hesitate to vote for the FA if you wish to, as the article may end up a little bit short to get promoted! Regards PHG 11:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate

No problem! I probably got bit hot under the collar too. I didn't realise about the procedure! Imperium Europeum 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology cats

Please do something! That guy is going a head with his plan of renaming. And I cannot find where the new category is being discussed under Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Plus, the general psychology community appears unaware that a massive reorganization is about to take place. (Of course, this is Wikipedia, so why not something like this?) Regards, --Mattisse 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely

I agree with your comments on my talk page completely. The person wanting to change Category:Emotion is a single person who has introduced a template "Emotion" into Category:Psychology. Since I complained to him that many, if not most, of the topics listed in the template were not in the purview of Psychology, he is proposing to change Category:Emotion into Category:Affective and related states (or something like that) in order to introduce his topics into Psychology. Not only are most of them not affective states, many of his included articles are on religion and spirituality which, in my opinion, do not belong in Psychology unless they are part of a solid research design. The person appears to have gathered from the comments on Category:talk Emotions page, that he has received support for his position and he is going forward.

However, I believe opposition is hopeless. It is a fact on Wikipedia that one person can do this sort of thing and will. I will work on the Forensic Psychology article as that is my area. Otherwise, I am bowing out of the whole mess. I will make an oppositional comments to the creator of the category change now and then, but I realize it is fruitless, like blowing in the wind. Regards, --Mattisse 13:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We share that feeling, I will keep doing what I like and won't get burned by useless fights either ;-) Arnoutf 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that I have nothing to do with those templates on emotions (sidebox, footer, or positive emotions footer), which I find awful. It appears that my renaming proposal will not be accepted. I should have be warned that affective was not a word common enough in English. You are perhaps not a native English speaker either... nevertheless, I am rather disappointed that you changed your opinion. So, we all share the same feeling! Feeeeeeeelings, wo-ho-oh, feeeeeelings.... --Robert Daoust 16:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Is it just me or has there just been a sharp rise in vandlaism on EU articles? Am I imagining this? - J Logan ^t: 16:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I did see some vandalism, but that may also be caused by a new batch of high school students who have first discovered Wikipedia and are fooling around. (the rise maybe seasonal and Wiki wide instead of focussed on EU) Arnoutf 17:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh good point, didn't think of that. I've just noticed more vandalism on EU pages, but I suppose as they are all I have on my watchlist... Thanks. - J Logan ^t: 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we did have a high rate, the article got protected after popping up on wikirage.com

But on another note, I was wondering if you were doing the copyedit still? Just wondering as CL is changing a lot of things which might be getting in your way if you were doing it. - J Logan ^t: 07:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we got vandalised; I am not much of a bureaucrat and tend to assume good faith.... About the copyedit. Haven't had time to start it yet, will make an announcement on EU talk before I start doing it; to make clear to everyone what is happening. Arnoutf 17:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Sea

Thanks for your helpful suggestions at the North Sea article. i hope youll check back periodically to help us evaluate the progress being made. thanks Jieagles 17:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for Category:Emotion

Hi, I've just made an alternative proposal regarding the renaming of Category:Emotion, and I thought you might like to comment before the discussion closes. Thanks. Cgingold 15:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense in the description of a painting

For the same reasons as in Dutch, one may use the present tense in an English description of a painting: to bring the picture "to life," to make the picture speak to us, to involve us. See here for an example, Reinier Nooms's The Battle of Leghorn. The Maritime Museum's description uses the past tense to describe the historic background; then it uses the present tense to describe what we actually see in the picture. "Appleton is fighting a losing battle" gives the story an immediacy. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 18:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

was n't thiniing about that exception, you're right.Arnoutf 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion

The article needs a lot of work. I'd like to work on it, but would need help. Are you willing to take a run at it? DCDuring 17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to, but to make a good job in one go will require more time than I have right now. Arnoutf 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

FAC Golden Film

You recently helped reviewing the article Golden Film. Currently this article is a featured article candidate. Maybe you are interested in commenting to the article or supporting/opposing the candidacy. – Ilse @ 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Jacobszoon Hinlopen

Thanks for rating this article of mine. You said it was almost B-class - what more needs doing to get there? Neddyseagoon - talk 17:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered at the talk page of the article. Arnoutf 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnout, dont put wrong information on the paintings in the article on Jan J. Hinlopen! Your fantasy was working. Next time check with me or the book. Taksen 07:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about???? I only made one edit in that article clarifying a sentence written in unintelligble English. If I misinterpreted the original sentence that is only proof the original was not well written; as I did not fanastasise anything only clarified what I read. Apparently the I misunderstood the original when making the edit; well that is a good indication that the original badly needed rephrasing as it was open to misinterpretation, no reason to start patronising me; your tone in writing is not to the point but rude and offensive. (please read WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL) Arnoutf 10:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrit Paape

Hello Arnout, you did not recognize the article on Gerrit Paape has been translated extremely well. It should be more than stub-class. If you call this stub I dont have much confidence in your opinion. Taksen 17:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arnout, I dont understand your last sentence. Sorry for being to the point. Taksen 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of European Merit
		I was going to wait till the EU FA had been completed to award this, but I now feel it wouldn't properly recognise your wider contributions. You have done a lot of work on European (and of course Dutch!) articles and helped the project immensely, including some of the most tedious work. Your work has also helped up a lot to getting the European Union article towards FA status. I thank you for your invaluable contributions and hope you continue for a long while yet! - J Logan ^t: 20:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
		_{this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~}

Congratulations. DCDuring 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 12:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]