The Dutchy is a new product that comes from Holland. In Holland is called a Sloffen. The Dutchy (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please stop removing the youtube source ok, the event happened its history and you can clearly see htat in the youtube vid, stop being a retard and deleting it ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moltenriches (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The event could have happened, but then it still is not a encyclopedic fact, so it will still be removed anyway. Greetings, Kweniston (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, interfering with my work while I am still editing my article. Are you some kind of cuckoo? Don't try it again.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, how could I know that you were making to make an article, if you hadn't even saved it yet? So why the aggressive behaviour? I'm just trying help out here, and threatening me is kind of childish. I made a lot of contributions to the dutch wiki concerning the Eighty Years' War, and I was thinking about adding to the English wiki, but your message is pretty encouraging indeed. Regards, Kweniston (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a rather strange coincidence. We were both working on an article Siege of Breda (1637) at the same time (it is still the thirteenth where I live :-). I put quite a lot of work in it and when I tried to save my work there was a clash with your edit. I don't know how this is possible? Didn't you get a message when you started editing the page? Of course, I didn't understand what was going on and got quite mad. I substituted my work for yours. If you take a look at my version, you'll probably admit that mine is far more extensive and is better referenced. Of course, you can insert your stuff, if you insist. I am sorry this happened, but can't help it. It is just one of those things.
- Now I see the same thing happened again: another edit conflict. I was editing my earlier angry message and couldn't get it in edgewise :-) Anyway, my apologies.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just cut/pasted the section out of the 1624/5 siege to a new 1637 page, for starters. And yes i can see your page is better and better referenced :). I am the main contributor the nl:Beleg van Groenlo (1627) page, so I know by now what's needed for a good article. Glad to get this misunderstanding out the way. :). Regards, and we'll probably talk again in the future. Kweniston (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kweniston! I just wanted to discuss your categorization of Slag om Grolle as "Early Modern reenactment". I'm afraid that this will lead us (WikiProject Reenactment) to excessive categorization, at least based on the number of reenacting articles presently existing. I've proposed (and received no comments on) a simple period-based categorization scheme (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Reenactment#Proposed changes) which is based on very broad periods with some overlap. I think this would be better to keep things to a smaller number of categories, at least until/unless the number of articles increases a bit. Otherwise we end up with (as in this case) a category with just one article in it, which is generally frowned upon. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this, either here, on my talk page, or on the WikiProject talk page, and will wait for your response before making any changes to this. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Cmadler, thanks for your comment. I created the subcat in line with the other existing categories (medieval, modern, etc). I agree that the category is underpopulated, and will problaby be for the (near) future. I personally would like the categories to correspond with the kind of warfare that the reenactments depict, that is the most logical categorization imho. Thus, Early Modern warfare in this particular case. The period of art and culture (such as Renaissance) is of less relevance than the state of warfare and military technology imo, since the reenactment is mainly based on battles. That is my view at the moment. I will try and check on the other pages. Cheers, Kweniston (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense. Can you help me figure out a good periodization scheme to use for WP:REENACT? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kweniston,
I just wanted to verify that [1] was a hoax article. Myself and friend made the duke up for a class on modern European history over 4 years ago. The term was added to the vocabulary list for the class and, to this day, students have to define him. We made the page to add validity to our claims, since nothing on the duke could be found in our textbook or any other materials. I'm sad to see that it's gone, but had forgotten that I made it in the first place.
Cheers, Koolaidman (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your honest reply! :) But then again, I'm glad to see it go. Cheers. Kweniston (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kweniston! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 9 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Johnny Hoogerland - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wheel of Time dice.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2012 (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) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kweniston. 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]
