User talk:DavidDijkgraaf

Specifically MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.

Hello, I'm FDW777. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Flanders campaign, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Hi DavidDijkgraaf! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Flanders campaign that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777 Hey thanks for educating me on the meaning of a minor edit. The things I added to that page aren't controversial tho. if you read the Wikipage of Prince Frederick it is clearly stated that he commanded Dutch forces during that campaign DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777 I can source it if you want that but the current sources seem like they do the job too DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Again see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox summarises key facts from the article. FDW777 (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Most commanders I added to various inboxes need(or already have) something written about them in the articles. I was planning to do that but that takes a bit of time. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Tilly's rank

Sorry if my request for clarification in the Tilly article was unclear itself. My point was that currently the infobox says "field marshal" but links to Lieutenant field marshal. If the correct rank is field marshal, we should link to that. If the correct rank is lieutenant FM, we shouldn't have a link text that says something else. Happy editing, Ljleppan (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I indeed misunderstood you. The link was indeed wrong. Thanks for helping out DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright and attribution issue

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from one or more pages to Isaac Cronström. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. For example: Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk pages of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, please add attribution retrospectively for that also, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 23:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe Thanks. I am fairly new here so I am not familiar with these things. I have also not taken anything from the French wikipedia, but I have taken parts from the Dutch wikipedia. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright than this is how you would do it. Please make sure to include an attribution notice in the future whenever you translate content from other Wikipedias; otherwise it would be a copyright violation which does get taken seriously around here. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Flag of the Dutch Republic

My friend, wikipedia does not work as you said. Longtime errors do not become biblical truth. If you claim a change in 1795 of the Dutch flag, you must add sources. In trials, facts should be proved, not the opposite. According to this painting, I do not see any difference between the 1700 and the 2000 Netherlands flag.
More, second problem, wikipedia is not Dutchpedia. You can not remove various informations (as about Monaco) for a single problem about a flag. Thank you.--Revolution Yes (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If you are gonna change something on a page you should be the one providing a source. Find a source that states that the Dutch Republic had the same flag as the current Dutch flag and you can change it without me removing it. If your source is a painting (which disproves your own point btw) I am not gonna take this serious. All pages on the Dutch Republic use the Prince's Flag or the flag of the Dutch State's General. I don't see why this page should be different. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

My friend, I’ll make it easier. Wikipedia is not a source of Wikipedia, this is a guideline. So, that flag could be used in Wikipedia since its foundation and this fact would be irrelevant. So, you must show your source that confirm the use of that type of flag in the late 18th century, and that flag will remain; if you don’t have sources, and you disagree about the 🇳🇱 well known flag, all flags will be removed as unsourced. So, I officially demand you according to Wikipedia guidelines: have you got sources about your asserted flag 🇱🇺 in the late 18th century (not ”during the late 16th century”, two hundred years before)? Thanks.--Revolution Yes (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't use Wikipedia as source for Wikipedia. I presumed that you might not have been to familiar with the topic. The problem is however that there was no official flag for the Dutch Republic. There was no rule which stated the offical colours of the Dutch flag. The Statenvlag was just the most common. The Batavian Republic still didn't make rules about which shade of blue the flag should use. It just generally became darker blue in the 19th century. For consistency's sake it is better in my opinion to keep it this way.

You can find a source yourself if you are truly interested in finding this out. And all flags here are unsourced, so if you are gonna remove al flags without a source I will not intervene. If you will only remove the Dutch Statenvlag I will. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I was in debt of a response. Unsourced.... most prominently the flags of UK (and England, Scotland...), the US, France, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Genoa, Venice, in the late 18th century are certainly not unsourced. It’s true, there are many other unsourced flags: but it is not the case of Holland.--Revolution Yes (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Ekeren

Hi DavidDijkgraaf. You've added the short form reference "Wijn 1956" to Battle of Ekeren, but that is undefined in that article. Could you add the required full cite to the Source section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah sorry. I forgot but I have done it now. Thanks DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello DavidDijkgraaf! Your additions to Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Nederlandse taal in gevaar!!!

Beste David, Ik neem aan dat je akkoord bent als ik je in het Nederlands toeschrijf? Ik heb net een post voor je achtergelaten op een andere talkpage. Maar ik wil het nu over iets heel anders hebben. Ik ben al sinds sinds februari 2008 op Wikipedia bezig (Mijn eerste edit was op Amboyna Massacre), en ik heb me sindsdien groen en geel geergerd aan de gewoonte van veel Amerikaanse Wikipedianen om Nederlandse namen met een voorvoegsel onjuist te "hoofdletteren' (capitalize). Ik gebruik altijd Antonie van Leeuwenhoek als voorbeeld, maar het gebeurt op veel grotere schaal. Het probleem zit er in dat de Voorschriften van de Nederlandse Taalunie boven de Amerikaanse pet gaan. Ze zien "van" met een kleine letter geschreven in de persoonsnaam en concluderen dan dat "dus" ook de achternaam met een kleine letter moet. Het komt in de beste kringen voor. Simon Schama, die ik overigens hoog heb vanwege zijn boeken over de Nederlandse geschiedenis, zoals "Patriots and Liberators", doet het stelselmatig fout. In zijn "Rembrandt's Eyes" (een overigens prachtig gedrukt boek) wordt de Index verpest, omdat hij een hele reeks "van ders"s opvoert onde de "V" (ook al zo'n Amerikaans misverstand) die allemaal met een kleine letter geschreven zijn. Maar wat doe je eraan? Ik ontdekte van de winter dat er een Wikipedia Manual of Style bestaat. En dat echte Wikipedianen elkaar daarmee om de oren slaan, als ze dat zo uitkomt. Ik word bijv. door iemand achtervolgt die stelselmatig mijn overtredingen van MOS:REFPUNCT bestraft. De relevante "capitalization" regel staat op dit moment in MOS:PERSONAL Dat is dus in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Als je dat opslaat, zul je zien dat de huidige formulering niet helpt tegen het genoemde euvel. Ik ben daarom een kruistocht op de talk-page van dit artikel begonnen om MOS:PERSONAL dusdanig te amenderen, dat in het vervolg Wikipedianen, die zich wat van het Manual of Style aan willen trekken (quod non) er in ieder geval op worden gewezen dat in Nederland (wellicht idiosyncratische) conventies bestaan op het gebied van de hoofdlettergeving van eigennamen. Maar dat blijkt geen eenvoudige zaak. Deze pagina blijkt nl. beheerd te worden door een kleine coterie van lieden die kennelijk emotioneel geinvesteerd zijn in de huidige formulering, en zich daarom met hand en tand verzetten tegen mijn "nieuwlichterijen". Als het aan deze lieden alleen ligt, zal er niets veranderen. Zie Amendment of guideline for capitalizing foreign personal names Gelukkig is er Hoger Beroep mogelijk. Bovenaan de genoemde Talk page is een rubriek opgenomen, waarin men onderwerpen kan aanmelden, waar onenigheid over bestaat, wat dan leidt tot een stemming in een breder Gremium. Maar daarin zal ik het ook wel verliezen, als ik niet wordt bijgestaan door andere (voormalige) Nederlanders die zich om hun taal bekommeren. Ik wil je daarom vragen of je wellicht in het Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands reclame voor deze goede zaak zou willen maken? (ikzelf heb daar nl. geen connecties). Ereunetes (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Ten eerste, bedankt voor al je goede werk aan pagina's over Nederlandse geschiedenis op Wikipedia. Dat is hard nodig.

Ten tweede ben ik het er mee eens dat dit hoofdletter gedoe vervelend is. Ik heb zelf ook geen connecties bij Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands, maar ik zal kijken of ik wat voor je kan doen. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Alvast bedankt. Misschien kun je zelf ook wat inbrengen in de betrokken discussie? Iedereen mag meepraten. Ereunetes (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Chiari

Hi, you've used a link to google user content for the Abraham De Vryer book on Battle of Chiari so people who aren't you get an Error 403 when we click on it. It would be great if you could replace the link with one to google books or archive.org that is accessible to other readers and editors. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it is corrected now DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Dutch Raid on North America

Whilst you did not submit it, as the majority contributor I saw it important to inform you that Dutch Raid on North America has been accepted into the mainspace: many thanks for your contributions! – Isochrone (T) 00:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Took a while this one DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked you from editing Assault on Nijmegen (1702) for a week. Please use the talk page to resolve your dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I have added Battle of Ekeren to the partial block, because you seem to be edit warring there too. PhilKnight (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand. No problem, I hope something will be worked out. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Putative explanation for "intercepted letter French officer" in connection with French losses at Malplaquet

You have noticed my new Abel Tassin d'Alonne project :-) In the course of that it occurred to me how Dumont the author of Dumont, J.; Rousset de Missy, J. (1729). Histoire militaire du prince Eugene de Savoye, du prince et duc de Marlborough, et du prince de Nassau-Frise. Trois tômes (in French). La Haye: Isaac van der Kloot. Retrieved 16 July 2023. could have put his hands on the famous (or infamous) letter of the French officer who mentioned 17,000 French losses at the Battle of Malplaquet, and got everybody hot under the collar anno 2023 on the talk-page of the latter article. In the first place, Dumont was the court archivist of the Austrian emperor when he wrote the book. But more importantly, he was also a friend of the brother of the stepfather of Abel, Daniel Tassin de Torsay, a major general in the Dutch States Army (see Glozier, M.; Onnekink, D. (2017). War, Religion and Service: Huguenot Soldiering, 1685–1713. Routledge. p. 194. Retrieved 4 August 2023.), and even more importantly probably someone who could have gotten Abel in contact with Dumont. Now this is pure speculation, but the letter of the French officer may have been intercepted in one of the black chambers Abel was managing at the time (my money is on the one in Brussels) in 1709. And Abel may have kept it as a souvenir in later years, and given it to his acquaintance Dumont sometime before 1720. What do you think? Ereunetes (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Denk dat we dit well in het Nederlands kunnen doen haha.

Voordat ik mijn mening geef over de waarschijnlijkheid van deze theorie is het misschien eerst interessant om deze brief eerst te delen.[1] De Vryer heeft namelijk ook de brief van de officier die de onderschepte brief in bezit had. Hij stuurde de brief naar zijn vrienden uit het kamp van Mons/Bergen. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Dutch Moroccan war

Hello, why did you delete my edit? In fact, Morocco won this war, and after the war, the Netherlands continued to pay tribute. I have sources that I will add. @DavidDijkgraaf Taha Moroccan (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Because the current sources don't support it. First add your sources and then engage in a discussion on the talkpage. Then we can discuss it and come to a solution DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Useful pdf about Anglo-Dutch Wars

First of all congratulations on your solution for the "result" predicament in the info box of the First Anglo-Dutch War article (and also the related articles). About the contents of these articles: you may be interested in the following pdf: The significance of leadership in the conduct of the Anglo-Dutch Wars which contains useful comment on such things as the role of natural factors (shallow Dutch coastal waters which prevented the construction of deep-drawing 3-deckers by the Dutch; the role of the weather gage in battles) which are not mentioned in the Wikipedia articles, though they were important in the First, and the first half of the Second, Anglo-Dutch War. I hope you make good use of it, as I have little interest in contributing to these articles. Cheers, Ereunetes (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to thank you, so bij deze. Will probably make use of it some time DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No need to thank me. I often try to be helpful, but I often also put my foot in it. Like in my latest contributions on the talk-page of Battle of Waterloo. You thanked me for my replies in your new topic about the Dutch contingent in the info box of that article, but the first reply was in fact rather sloppy of me. So I tried to make up for that in the second (the addendum). But I should have been more careful the first time. In the course of my "research" I discovered that most if not all relevant references about the Dutch and Nassau contingents in the article are to the Barbero book. You should realize that Barbero is not so much a secondary source, as well as a slavish follower of the Siborne school. He played a very large role as the source for the early versions of the article (presumably because as an Italian he was supposed to be "neutral") in which Bylandt's brigade was still placed on the forward slope of the hill "mercilessly being massacred by the opening bombardment of the French artillery", as Siborne would have it. This myth has since been rectified in the article, but (like the First Anglo-Dutch War and Battle of Malplaquet articles) this needed to be dragged away from before the Gates of Hell. I have to admit this put me off the article, and especially its talk-page for a long while now. I only pass by it from time to time to enjoy the latest battle Urselius is waging against anybody who dares to doubt Siborne in even the slightest way. If you want to know what argumentum ad hominem really means, you should sample these "discussions" :-) In that context: my advice is to leave the info box of the Waterloo article alone, however distasteful it may be. Life is simply too short. But if you persevere I think the safest way is to use the Order of Battle article as a relatively impartial source for the numbers that may help in reconstructing the numbers in the infobox. If there are any discrepancies between the two, that may give you a polemical advantage :-) Ereunetes (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah these discussions are pretty tiring, but I better engage in them now, when I still have the time and energy for it ;). DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There is another "outrage" in the infobox of Battle of Quatre Bras where Eastfarthingan has removed all non-British commanders in favor of such late-comers to the party as Uxbridge. I think it is his revenge for the Anglo-Dutch Wars infoboxes. It is all so childish. I am not getting involved; instead I am for the moment suspending my contributions to Wikipedia. Ereunetes (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a shame Ereunetes. We could use some more pages about the Wars of Louis XIV ;) DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Its a bit off topic but…

Could you recommend me a good documental or book about the Dutch Fleet?

It seems like you know a lot about it. Im studying history and I found the history of The Netherlands interesting.

Thanks, and sorry for the off topic 31.221.234.233 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No Problem, you can always ask me stuff. As for your question. It is difficult to find good sources in the English language, but these might help:

Docus:[2][3][4]

Books:[5][6][7] DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! 31.221.241.38 (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Deputies-in-the-field (Dutch Republic)

Hello, DavidDijkgraaf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Deputies-in-the-field (Dutch Republic), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Beste David. Ik vond het zonde om dit artikel-in-wording verloren te laten gaan. Ik heb daarom een voorzet gedaan in de draft, waardoor het eliminatieproces voorlopig is gestuit. Je ziet maar wat je ermee doet. Er zou een lijst van belangrijke gedeputeerden te velde in kunnen worden opgenomen. Ik heb er geen tijd voor, maar ik heb een bron ervoor opgenomen bij de sources. Hoop dat je hier wat aan hebt. Ereunetes (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Dispereert niet Ereunetes. Ik heb die pagina al een tijdje geleden gepubliceerd. Je bent welkom om hem uit te breiden ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_deputy_(Dutch_Republic) DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ik ben een beetje beteuterd, want de bot had het, net zo min als ik, gemerkt en het dreigement dateerde van 11 december jl. Dus ik dacht dat er haast bij was. Maar daarom niet getreurd. Ik denk dat mijn bijdrage niet een doublure van de jouwe is. Wat er nieuw aan is, kan nog in het artikel vervlochten worden. Maar ik weet nog niet wanneer ik tijd heb. Je mag het zelf ook gebruiken. Ereunetes (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Als je geen tijd blijkt te hebben, kan ik het altijd later nog doen. Dit is één van mijn favoriete artikelen dus ik zal er zeker nog wat tijd aan besteden in de toekomst. Juist de achtergrond had nog wat informatie nodig, dus jouw aanvullingen zullen zeker wat toevoegen. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

En een tip. Lees de discussie van Atkinson and Liddel-Hart voor de grap. Hier[8] en hiero[9] DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Ik heb drie sources toegevoegd (aan het begin, om ze duidelijk te maken; de alfabetische volgorde lijdt hieronder:-). Ik beveel zowel Thomassen als Gouwens ter lezing aan, want daarin komt tot uiting dat de gedeputeerden te velde en ter zee toch wel degelijk functionarissen van de Staten Generaal waren en niet van de provinciale staten. Bij Gouwens staat de relatie tussen de deputaties en de secrete besognes goed op een rijtje. Op grond hiervan ben ik het oneens met de eerste volzin van de lede, die je aan Landolt ontleent. Daarachter zit een hele wereld van onenigheid over wie nu eigenlijk de souvereiniteit had in de Republiek: de Staten-Generaal of de gewestelijke staten. Ik denk dat het antwoord is: op het gebied van militaire zaken op grond van het Unie van Utrecht verdrag duidelijk de Staten Generaal. Op andere gebieden kon er over getwist worden en dat werd dan ook tijdens het Twaalfjarig Bestand gedaan, met kwalijk gevolg voor Oldenbarnevelt. Pikant is dat De Witt een extreem standpunt over de oppersoevereiniteit van de Gewesten huldigde ("Ware Vrijheid"), maar dus niet waar het de gedeputeerden ter zee betrof (want dan kon hij in zijn eentje het maritiem beleid voeren) :-) Ik lees tussen de regels van Gouwens dat de Staten van Holland het daarmee oneens waren. Dit zijn opmerkingen die op de talkpage thuishoren, maar ik houd het liever informeel. De lijst van gedeputeerden uit het Nationaal Archief is wellicht nuttig als bron voor een aan het artikel toe te voegen lijst. Ik laat het voortouw graag aan jou. Wat de twee jstor entries betreft: ik kon er niet bij, want ik kon mijn wikipedia library inlog niet gebruiken (ik had de afgelopen maand nl. minder dan tien edits gemaakt; dit is echter de tiende van de maand, dus misschien lukt het nu :-) En ja hoor, ik mag er weer in en heb de onvriendelijke woordenwisseling nu gelezen :-) Voor Atkinson was het duidelijk: het was hoe dan ook de schuld van de Hollanders, of dat nu gedeputeerden waren of generaals. En ook Liddell-Hart was ervan overtuigd dat de "obstructie" er was, zij het dat hij de burger-gedeputeerden in bescherming probeert te nemen. Dus alles bij elkaar het bekende Engels-historiografische stramien: "het was alles en overal de schuld van "the Dutch" als er iets niet naar het zin ging" Net als bij de meeste veldslagen in de oorlog in Vlaanderen voor 1795, en in de slag bij Waterloo. Wat was het leven toch helder en duidelijk voor de Engelse historicus van voor 1945, d.w.z. voordat lieden als Israel en Schama de Nederlandse archieven zelf in het Nederlands begonnen te lezen. Atkinson vond dat natuurlijk volslagen overbodig :-)Ereunetes (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ereunetes Bedankt, het gaat waarschijnlijk even duren voor dat ik er iets mee doe, maar dat moet wel goed komen.

In de tussentijd ben ik van plan de pagina van Anthonie Heinsius te verbeteren. Dat werd eens tijd. Je hulp is altijd welkom ;).

En ja, het leven van de Engelse historicus leek inderdaad vrij simpel haha, maar ik vond die discussie/nette ruzie toch wel leuk tussen Atkinson en Liddell-Hart. Het deed me denken aan discussies op deze website. Jammer dat het geen vervolg kreeg. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Btw, Chatgpt is een super goede vertaler. Een tip voor als je nog is een keer grote stukken moet vertalen. Maakt het allemaal super makkelijk. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

En je kan hem zelfs gebruiken om een literatuurlijst te maken DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Request

I have noticed you restored the material removed at Spanish armada, can you see if it's the case to restore similar material removed at the pages of Philip II of Spain and Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba as well? This is a well-known permanently blocked user (User:JamesOredan and his tons of socks) with a rangemarked IP as you can see, who goes around altering history to push his personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E11:17:40B0:E569:4B1C:8F7C:C53D (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Done DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

DavidDijkgraaf the one now twisting content at Voyages of Christopher Columbus, Age of Discovery and Anglo-Spanish War (1762–1763) is an IP of his again. User:Indefatigable2 has reverted him at Magellan expedition. He should be reverted for his most recent edits at these other articles as well. But there is a bigger problem because all these pages (and many others) have been heavily edited by his socks over the years, so for example I remember it used to say the Age of Discovery went from 15th to the 19th century and he 1)cut it short at the 17th century 2)downplayed non-Spanish contributions (Portuguese, Dutch, French, English etc). Another thing he has done over many years is that he goes rebranding everywhere the Magellan expedition as "Magellan-Elcano", purely because the latter is Spanish and the first is Portuguese. Now I may be wrong but to my knowledge: 1)it's universally known as Magellan expedition. 2)Elcano was not in charge of the whole expedition, he was in charge of the single ship that survived and managed to return. He heavily twistes the sources, so one has to be careful with his edits. Another classic of his is that he randomly deletes that Columbus was Italian and removes or water downs English victories against Spain. Conversely he straight up invents or exaggerates Spanish victories against England (User:Klbrain knows this for the Castilian attack on Gravesend page). At the page of the Spanish empire he has created a mess many times and he is also obsessed with the War of Jenkins' Ear (not long ago User:Eastfarthingan, who also knows this blocked user very well, has reverted an IP of his at that page; recently someone at the talk page of the Spanish empire noticed there is something off with the figures of that war and this mess very likely goes back to him). There would be much more to say, but if you see this kind of agenda it's him.2A01:E11:17:40B0:15F0:2916:F0B8:5E56 (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Battle of Woerden

Hello, DavidDijkgraaf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Woerden, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A Dutch-Jewish philosopher

I've noticed your edits on the page of Spinoza. You are of course right. Some examples of notable scholars of Spinoza's work are referring to him as follows:

- Steven Nadler: 'Dutch intellectual', 'the 17th-century Dutch thinker'
- Edwin Curley: 'the 17th century Dutch philosopher’
- Anthony Gottlieb: ‘a Dutch Jewish philosopher’
- Richard Popkin: 'Dutch philosopher'
- Margaret Gullan-Whur: 'a first generation Dutch Jew'
- Encyclopedia Britannica: 'Dutch Jewish philosopher'
- Oxford World Encyclopedia: 'Dutch rationalist philosopher'

However, the addition of his origin ("of Portuguese-Jewish origin") would be MOS:ETHNICITY, and therefore not appropriate for the lede. "Dutch-Jewish" would be a better option. The Oxford Reference apparently prefers either "Dutch philosopher" or "Dutch-Jewish philosopher". Apart from "Dutch" in a cultural sense, with regard to Spinoza's citizenship, this is e.g. elaborated in "Dutch Jewry: Its History and Secular Culture (1500-2000)". All Dutch jews had citizenship from the 1650s onwards (first minor citizenship in Amsterdam in 1654, then full citizenship in the entirety of Holland in 1657). Again, this stands apart from cultural considerations (that I prefer). GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@GoneWithThePuffery I would be okay with Dutch-Jewish to. It just seemed unacceptable to not include his Dutchness. The current description, which includes his Portuguese origins, is also fine to me, but if you wanna change it up to adhere to the guidelines I wouldn't mind DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"It just seemed unacceptable to not include his Dutchness", that's indeed very true, although I fear some people are going to disagree with this strongly. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What matters is what he's referred to as in sources, not what we personally find to be ideal. Remsense诉 15:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, in that case we would come to the same result. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Deputies-in-the-field (Dutch Republic)

Hello, DavidDijkgraaf. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Deputies-in-the-field".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Off topic but:

Ur a really great Page creator keep up the good work hope to see more of u. Basedwihelm (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, apriciate it. Plan to be more active in the future again, but I am currently a bit to busy to stamp out new pages :) DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

completly understandable Basedwihelm (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Battle of Tolhuis

Hello, DavidDijkgraaf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Tolhuis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Dutch occupation of London

Hello, DavidDijkgraaf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dutch occupation of London, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Concerning your newest edit to Michiel de Ruyter

Hi. i see that you removed the Dano-Dutch War from the Michiel de Ruyter article. i would like to know why you did that? The article mentions him participating, so I don’t see a reason to removed the war from his page. E4t5s.new (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. I pressed on publish accidently before I could make my point. Anyway, there are several problems, but the major problem is that it covers the Expedition to West Africa (1664-1665), which is already included. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

140 ships

140 ships burnt and destroyed with a village burnt down.

The bonfire caused more damage than the Raid on Medway. 2A0A:EF40:E9F:1601:B418:56FF:E720:1272 (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this shows your lack of knowledge about the period and war. During the Raid on the Medway the English lost warships, which are far more valuable in a war than merchant ships and a small village. The Medway meant that England could not continue the war. Holmes's bonfire did not have an effect close to that. No historian will even compare the two in that manner. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Battle of Woerden

I have seen that your draft of the Battle of Woerden has not been edited in a bit so I decided to finish the draft and submit it, if you don't mind that. User:VidarVN (Talk) 23:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@VidarVN No problem. Sometimes I get bored by a subject or don't have access to a particular source at the moment so I don't finish a certain page. Always feel free to help out. Thanks. I will probably add more to the page later DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about the Dutch-Barbary War

The true causes of the Dutch–Barbary War, which broke out between 1618 and 1622, were rooted primarily in diplomatic and political disputes, particularly over the principle of "free ship, free goods" and the issue of the free release of Dutch prisoners. The attacks by Algerian corsairs on Dutch ships, though significant, were not the cause of the conflict but rather a consequence of escalating diplomatic tensions. As noted by [the source], "the issues of 'free ship, free goods' and the free release of prisoners were at the origin of this war." In this context of political rivalry, military incidents, such as those involving Quast and Lambert, further fueled the hostilities.User:MaybeDailyHistory (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

While it is true that this played a role, your edits are problematic for other reasons. Your wording makes to much use of subjective language and the writing was sloppy. You can't leave an article behind in such a state and expect others to fix your language. Also don't do original reasearch. Check this page: Wikipedia:OR DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

ok thank you for your reply I will take care to make my sources reliable but I don't understand wdym by saying that I need to fix my language ? MaybeDailyHistory (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)