Hello, Andreas Philopater. Ren Zhiqiang, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot ( talk!) 00:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

On 12 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ren Zhiqiang, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ren Zhiqiang, a property tycoon and outspoken critic of the government, has been called "China's Donald Trump"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ren Zhiqiang. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

—♦♦ AMBER ^(ЯʘCK) 00:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 00:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't suppose you could start a formal move discussion on the page? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 15:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I've opened a move discussion myself - could you comment? All best, — Brigade Piron ( talk) 19:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry - didn't see this at the time (was travelling on 18 July; and dealing with other issues when I did look back in). -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 11:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I saw that you recently reverted an edit I made on the page Peter Wright (Jesuit) and I'd like to understand why so that I can be a better editor in the future. I deleted the category English Roman Catholic priests because he was also in the category 17th-century English Jesuits and since "Jesuits" are a subcategory of "Roman Catholic priests" (and the text doesn't mention him belonging to any other orders), I didn't see a need for him to be in the larger category. Can you clarify? Thanks, Katya ( talk) 23:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Not all Jesuits were priests (such as Nicholas Owen (Jesuit), just to give one example), so even though "Jesuit" is currently a subcategory of "priest", not all members of the subcategory are actually members of the parent category. This is a question that I suspect has to be addressed at the level of the category tree itself. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation! Katya ( talk) 02:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

No problem. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 18:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

The fact is, this is how he is usually referred to in the literature, as with Erasmus. Library catalogues and databases are actually NOT a very good determinant of the right title in this sortr of period. You should at the least have raised the matter on talk before moving it. Johnbod ( talk) 10:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Apologies, it seemed an entirely uncontroversial move, especially as the article itself warns of potential confusion with Gerhard Wolter Molanus. Looking through the first five or six pages of hits on Google Books, I have to say that "Molanus" in a way similar to "Erasmus" appears rather less than the full name, and is largely limited to the 19th-century literature. I rather assumed its use here was a holdover from copying an out-of-copyright Britannica. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 10:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

That's not my experience in the art history literature - & they are really about the only people to take an interest in him today. Johnbod ( talk) 11:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

While my experience of the art history literature is that for the past 20 years it has been typical to give his full name at first mention before reverting to surname alone, which is pretty much standard for any author referred to. The issue really is what current sources do. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 11:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The detailed history of the Portuguese Jewish community of Antwerp appears in (Leoni, Aron di Leone. 2004. The Hebrew Portuguese nations in Antwerp and London at the time of Charles V and Henry VIII: new documents and interpretations. Jersey City, NJ: KTAV). Of course, the book is focused on Crypto-Jews, but it includes numerous documents and none mention a single Jewish given name: only the Christian ones, while if open Jews were indeed trading in Antwerp (as you suggest) it would be natural for them to trade with Crypto-Jews too. In various other studies on Jewish history in the region, not a single open Jew is recorded before the beginning of the 18th century. What is your source about Jews trading in Antwerp? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albeider ( talk • contribs) 10:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC) reply

My understanding is based on a seminar I was at 20-odd years ago where somebody was presenting their research on Jews in Antwerp. As I said, no objection to the changes if sourced. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 21:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I tried to clean this article, the family is indeed important, but we present online just some awfull articles whitout sources. Can you have a look at René-Philippe van de Werve and Fernand van de Werve: they look very poor. I have done some cleaning in this house. If i start to read Charles V Augustin van de Werve, Count of Vorsselaer, i think this is NE. if i check Augustin van de Werve, children> this is wrong. They have all been created by User talk:Hvdwds, who will clean this mess, can we ask User:Paul Brussel? Etc... -- Carolus ( talk) 17:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Carolus, I have no idea. I had not previously been aware of Paul Brussel. Looking him up I see you thanked him on his talk page, though – does that mean the desired edits have been made? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 18:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

No, i ask hem the same as to you. I did already some cleaning, can all please help? -- Carolus ( talk) 19:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

OK, i did some major cleaning, hopefully no mistakes, this family is really complicated!-- Carolus ( talk) 10:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I too have done what I could. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 11:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Don't worry, there are plenty of other problems with your edits! In Belgian languages he may be "cited", "referenced" etc as just Molanus, but in English he is very often just CALLED that. I'm far from sure it is me who should think of WP:OWN. Johnbod ( talk) 17:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Not sure about "Belgian languages". Your preference for using Dutch rather than English on en.wiki suggests you might have some expertise there. But outside scholarly referencing, when did you last come across mention of Molanus? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 17:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't speak more than a few words of Dutch. Molanus is frequently mentioned in art history, but obviously never outside it, in English anyway. As the most extreme of the Tridentine art police, he can usually be relied on for a strong opinion. As usual, I don't quite understand what your point is, other than being on intent on keeping the main/only aspect of his modern reputation out of the parts of the article you apparently now own. Johnbod ( talk) 02:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't have a point. But I notice you seem to object to any attempt to improve the article you started. You were curiously tolerant of false information being added, even re-adding it yourself after it had been removed, but any correction or contextualisation you seem to see as some sort of provocation.-- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 09:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

On the contrary, I have left all the elements that actually are improvements, but will continue to object to the changes that are inaccurate or misleading (or introduce silly Victorian terms). It is stuff like "defended the production and use of devotional images, but with many restrictions to prevent abuses" that is grossly misleading without contextualisation, as I said in my edit summary when first removing it. Johnbod ( talk) 12:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Whereas you think it sufficient simply to say his views were "severe" – in a context of widespread condemnation and destruction of images? If you don't like what I write, write something better. Reverting to something so patently useless is lazy and unhelpful. I get that you also don't like "Iconoclastic Fury", but it is (as I have shown) in common use in current English. Wikipedia follows common use, not your idea of whether or not VIctorian terms are silly. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 17:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, can you place these in the right council? i am confused i Think this is Mechelen?

• Jean Thadee de Grouff
• Jean Joseph de Vreven
• Corneel Janssens Hujoel
• Claude Igance de Febure
• Auguste de Steenhault
• Remy du Laury: Procurator-General in 1716.
• Jean Ferdinand Keyaerts: Procurator-General in 1716.
• Jean Guillaume de Potter: Advocate-Fiscal until 1742.
• Jean Baptiste van Slabbeeck: Advocate-Fiscal in 1744.
• Henri Joseph de Villers: Advocate-Fiscal in 1767.
• Claude Sotteau : Procurator-General in 1742.
• Jean Philippe de Wapenaert : Procurator-General in 1750.
• Charles Thomas Caimo.
• Charles Henri Goubau.
• Melchior Goubau d'Hovorst, son of Charles.
• Henri Theodore Jacobs: Procurator-General in 1761.
• Ignace Josepg Wirix: Afvocate-Fiscal in 1771.
• Goswijn de Fierlant.
• Joseph Wiro de Bors.
• Jacques Joseph de Stassart.
• Daniel Servaes.
• Jean Louis Pouppez
• François Alexander de Steenhault.

thank you! -- Carolus ( talk) 21:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Without sources I wouldn't know where to start. A quick look on Google Books does turn up this volume which might be some use in getting them all straight. Of course, it's perfectly possible that some people were appointed to one council and then transferred to another (like ministers moving between ministries today), so might be in more than one at different times (or even the same time). -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 22:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

This suggests Great Council for at least some of them. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 22:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

ok thanks, i was not certain. lets go!-- Carolus ( talk) 18:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Andreas Philopater,

There is a requested move discussion on Talk:Free City of Kraków that I thought you might be interested in.

Genealogizer ( talk) 20:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I noticed you reverted my changes to The Decorator and Furnisher. The "The" appears to be part of the official title, based on the JSTOR link and the publication's own masthead, and thus the article and title should reflect this. See WP:THE for more background. Cheers,

--Animalparty! (
talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
reply

I reverted because you'd turned "Decorator" into "ecorator" and I assumed it was somebody trying out how easy Wikipedia was to edit, rather than somebody seriously attempting improvement. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 08:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Although on the topic you bring up, I should say my understanding has always been that titles of periodicals are only cited with the "The" in front if it's The Times. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 08:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Andreas Philopater,

Since you participated in the recent WP:RM on the Free City of Cracow, I thought you might be interested in this requested move. ( Talk:Kraków uprising) Genealogizer ( talk) 22:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Please don't add "Belgian" categories to people who lived and worked prior to 1830, as this is an anachronism. While for places, monuments, ... (things which last) it is often useful to make the link with Belgian (as a 15th century building is now in Belgium), for a person or a dissolved company this is usually a bad idea as it confuses things. E.g. Willem Vorsterman was not a Belgian book publisher, he was a Flemish one and if necessary a Habsburgian one (though Flemish alone is sufficient in my opinion). Fram ( talk) 08:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Fram, I didn't create the category, or start adding it to pre-1830 individuals. For that you can thank Bearcat. I just want to make sure that whatever categories are being used are applied consistently, so if and when the category is renamed or split, the relevant articles will already be in it. As to Vorsterman, he was not Flemish – unless we're using "Flemish" either very loosely or equally anachronistically. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 10:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

When a category is incorrect, making it consistently incorrect is not any better than having it on some pages only. And Vorsterman was Flemish, just like Rubens is nearly universally described as a Flemish painter: not a Belgian one, not a Southern Dutch one, a Flemish one. For cultural people working in roughly current Flanders (and some adjoining regions in current France, Wallonia and the Netherlands) "Flemish" is the common adjective. This is not restricted to the old County of Flanders only. Fram ( talk) 11:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

And there was me thinking that "Netherlandish" was the currently preferred term. It is hard to keep up. But I shall henceforth simply ignore categories as a distraction. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 12:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

For "Flemish Primitives", we now use "Early Netherlandish", that's true. But later on, the distinction between Dutch and Flemish gets more important, and using Netherlandish for Southern Dutch would be more confusing than anything else. Fram ( talk) 12:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, there is "Early Netherlandish" some "Renaissance Netherlandish", but no "Late Netherlandish". Johnbod ( talk) 14:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

And 1520s/1530s would be "late" in this scheme? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 17:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Andreas Philopater,

Since you participated in the Free City of Cracow RM, I want to let you know about an RM on Talk:Kraków złoty.

Genealogizer ( talk) 04:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Why some people here have no respect for ones efforts? I spend hours reading the RD in thousands of old pages, and some people are very rude not respecting this. Is someone is commander in the Order of Leopold, eg, by royal decree, and sources then this is more then enough, to start. If people do not respect this effort, i just will stop writting new articles, and spending HOURS of research and making pics for wiki-Commons. My way of working is basic and correct, do not expect anything more, i like to make a point that certain people are missing and received honours, and that makes them E. Point made. i do not care about the rest, if the RD says Commander or grand cross, this is more then enough. There is no point in writing full biographies, people will change them anyway because of 1/ their oppinion, and 2/ the spelling errors. The last one is discriminating people who do not speak fully english. -- Carolus ( talk) 12:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I hope you don't think my efforts to improve the articles you start indicate any lack of respect for the effort you put into them? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 13:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

No, of course not, sometimes i learn more from you then, other people who like to delete stuff. Do you understand my point, I never heard of a Royal order, until you fixed it. In Belgium we call this a Royal Decree, language issue. -- Carolus ( talk) 14:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I put a new article on nlwiki once. Within minutes it was at AfD with people mocking my poor Dutch rather than discussing the substantive merits. My response was, I have to admit, not dignified. So I do sympathise. But if you want to keep contributing (and I hope you do) it has to be taking into account that this is not a personal webpage, but something anybody can edit and comment on and discuss, often in ways that are rather confrontational (or at least can come across as confrontational online, the internet having no tone of voice). -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

And unfortunately, not everyone is so patient as you, so i propably will stop. A few people are working and creating, others just shouting from the side. and ruining everything. that is an issue in all wiki, NL, FR; UK....but Jimbo has no reply for that one. Shame.-- Carolus ( talk) 14:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I still have some names, if i get the time, i can upload them later. But if Fram comes after 1 day deleting them: bye bye wiki.-- Carolus ( talk) 11:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't want to cramp your style, but have you considered the suggestion of developing new articles in draft first? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 13:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, i know what people mean, but draft is for idiot who need a babysitter. It is very humilitating.-- Carolus ( talk) 18:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

User subpage then? These are mine - but they do tend to gather dust, without the impetus of working directly in mainspace. It might feel like a restriction, but could be preferable to clashing with Fram and others at every turn. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 18:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I can give that a try, if it keeps bloody Fram away, why not. thanks for the tip.-- Carolus ( talk) 21:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I can provide a quote from Kittel and BDAG if you want, but this section is about the etymology of the Word. While the two refer may refer to the same festival in some historical contexts, for the etymology section it is enough to note that different words are used in the Septuagint. I don't really understand the point you are trying to make in your last revision, because I am not the one who added Tanakh - it is not in the sources, so I've removed it. You should not be revising an extremely well sourced section based on your personal opinions. If you need access to the sources, I am sure someone at the Resource Exchange can help you. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 10:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

It is not my personal opinion that Tobit and Maccabees are in the Septuagint. As I said in my edit summary, look up "Septuagint" if you do not understand this. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 10:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Seraphim System

Dear Andreas Philopater, I have noticed that that even though you disagree Seraphim System he is still interacting you as a human being. For whatever reason, he seem to have dropped all effort to discuss my points, and just misrepresents my efforts as vandalism. How do you think I can improve things? Since I do not understand his POV, he comes across to me as merely presenting many haphazard fallacies. tahc ^chat 17:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC) reply

DearTahc, I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that one. Perhaps just leave it a couple of days and then post a comment to the article talkpage to get the conversation going? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 20:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Ironically, I came to the discussion on Pentecost thinking that I would be supporting Seraphim given that I appreciated his work and suggestions at Fall of Constantinople. I very quickly came to the conclusion that he is in the wrong here and is removing perfectly acceptable and useful source material. The Medii aevi kalendarium, when I finally looked at it, proved to be an even better source than I thought. I did edit the archaic "Greek Church" in the article body -- at the time, that was a catch-all for both the Orthodox and Uniate Churches, Greek-speaking or otherwise (which is easily supported by looking up "Greek Church" article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia) -- but that doesn't diminish the overall soundness of the source. Where updated language is necessary we can provide it without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I was hoping he would drop this, but it looks like it has been escalated instead.-- Jpbrenna ( talk) 19:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm the one who added that source and the material. You on the other hand, continue to add unsourced and incorrect material to the article, which is a major problem. The definition for "Greek Church" in the Catholic Encyclopedia can not be applied to a different source (Medii aevi kalendarium) this is WP:SYNTH. Eastern Catholic Church is entirely unsourced. Your penchant for dated sources is a problem, because you are adding information from those sources that has been superseded by more recent sources. In fact, given the similar behavioral patterns between you and other editors here, including adding unsourced information, the use of dated sources, non-productive talk discussion and edit warring, I don't quite believe that you just "happened" to stumble into the discussion on Pentecost. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 19:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Your recent edit is now open for discussion RS/n by the way, in case you want to explain why you decided to restore this, after I explained in a clear and detailed edit summary that it had been superseded by NA28. According to Mounce Parsing hemera (LSJ) is Dative and hemeran (NA28 with Critical Apparatus) is Accusative. That is the kind of thing you should get right. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 19:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

That makes at least three of us thinking pretty much the same thing. Careful though – before you know it we'll be a CONSPIRACY!!!1!! -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 21:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Yeah but there's no excuse for getting the noun cases wrong, and adding unsourced WP:SYNTH to an article. Most of these articles are in pretty bad shape, and I think it's clear why. Unsourced additions, WP:OR, dated sources, lazy editing. Obviously, cleaning up this mess will be a long-term investment. Shameful. We'll go to dispute resolution eventually. Let's all take a rest, until then, I am going to follow basic Wiki advice and go work on something more niche Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 21:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you had added that source. I would have thought it too old for you, as it is nearer in time to Alban Butler than it is to the present. That's my mistake, and I apologize. I have already apologized for the typo in the Greek quotation. I did not violate WP:SYNTH. Synth is combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion not reached by the sources. I did not do that in this article. I deliberately left my own transcription outside of the reference to show that I was not claiming any source had said that. It is not an OR violation to follow established transcription principles found at WP:Naming conventions (Greek)#Transliteration. If you feel you can provide a better transcription adhering to these guidelines, or have an important reason to claim an exception, feel free to change it.-- Jpbrenna ( talk) 23:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

If you don't have access to Nestle-Aland you can just ask on talk and I will check. It has nothing to do with transcription, the source doesn't even have the case for Pentecost, so you must have guessed. It's not a typo, the source seems to be in error or is based on a different manuscript, but doesn't say which. I know from Metzger's commentary that hemeran tes pentekostes is based on the Bezan text of Acts and that James Hardy Ropes has written about why that is his preferred text, for those interested in more information. As was discussed on RS/n NA28 is considered the scholarly text of the Greek New Testament. Maybe you didn't understand the edit summary, but you should have asked me instead of reverting. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 23:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I didn't "guess" at the case: I know enough Greek to know my cases. I made a typo that turned the genitive case into the nominative. That's what I was talking about here. The first I knew about the accusative τῆν ἡμέραν/ nominative ἡ ἡμέρα discrepancy was when I read it after posting the above. It seems I missed the second half of your edit summary where you mentioned Nestle-Aland. Did you also post details about the discrepancy on the talk page? -- Jpbrenna ( talk) 01:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I have answered my own question above, yes, you did attempt to post them at RF/S, although your confusion of the dative for the accusative led me to think you were talking about my own typo that turned a quoted genitive into a nominative.-- Jpbrenna ( talk) 04:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

"I know enough Greek to know my cases" is not enough, it needs to be in the source per WP:V. We are not supposed to make edits that other editors can not verify based on our own knowledge. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 08:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Any preference of names? :) -- Carolus ( talk) 11:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Category:Members of the Royal Spanish Academy
• Category:Member of the Royal Academy of Belgium

Normally speaking categories take plurals (don't know why, but it seems to be a Wikipedia convention), e.g. Category:Educators, Category:People from Brussels -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 11:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

shouldn it be Members of the Royal Academy of Spain? point? and this in dutch? Category:Members of the Koninklijke Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen-- Carolus ( talk) 11:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

My understanding is that the Royal Spanish Academy is an academy of the Spanish language, not a general scientific academy. Its name includes the name of the language, not of the country. More generally, I wouldn't worry too much about consistency from one country to another: different institutions translate their names in different ways, or prefer to leave them untranslated. It's not up to us to impose patterns where none exist in reality. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 12:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The mass deletion was unnecessary! Twillisjr ( talk) 21:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

There was no need: they were all already there except for one that was not bluelinked. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 21:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the improvements. I am now contacting the Angelic Warfare Confraternity with some issues. It seems the Confraternity of the Cord of Saint Thomas is "part" of the Angelic Warfare Confraternity. Some confusion exists, but when it is all sorted out, the Association mentioned with Francis Duerwerdes may change. Twillisjr ( talk) 23:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The British Museum has "the Angelic Warfare Confraternity (also called the Guild of the Cord of St Thomas Aquinas)" ( here). -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 00:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Great find, I am using a far less than user-friendly device. I hope to fix these circumstances and get on that task eventually. Nice meeting you and I apologize for the initial harshness demonstrated. Be well! Twillisjr ( talk) 04:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks Twillisjr. Apology accepted. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 16:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Pre 1600 dutch nobility used voorzetsels like "van", no french needed. If you want to translate correctly this should be ex. Godelieve of spoelbech was born around 1450 or Godelieve of Malleghem or Godelieve of Beveren. Godelieve de Malleghem would be very incorrect on the UK Wiki, however would be ok on the FR wiki. After 1600 it is correct that noble persons translated their names, before this was rarely seen. So please never use the French name version when someone is born before ca 1550, please use the english version, that makes sence. -- Carolus ( talk) 10:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply

That may be so, although a source for the claim would be useful. The main guide for en.wiki, however, should be what is used in standard works of secondary literature in English, regardless of what the people used themselves or what is common in either Dutch or French. If your concern here is Spoelberch, I'm easy – we have sources both ways. For Lannoy Lalaing, however, the Dutch version really never is used in English. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 18:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Can you have a look into Prince of Arche and Charleville? thank you. -- Carolus ( talk) 00:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll be away to the end of the month, but I'll have a look when I get back. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 08:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I kindly advice you and your UK friends here to be carefull, this guy had a wonderfull history in the NL wiki. Mr van Brussel sees himself as an authority on this subject and does not like feed back. It is correct he has a conflict with me, this proves already his visition: he like to break down, not contributing-- Carolus ( talk) 18:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the advice. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 20:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Anyway, Great Council of Mechelen is a very interresting history, i am creating some info about the presidents. Amazing.-- Carolus ( talk) 22:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Wel i warned you, mr Brussel, very frustrated has been in action, what his vision is the only and true one (irrelevant or untrue), and if nobody stops him, the article, a work of many people, will be only his signature. Is this what you want? A fanatic that even deletes sourced additions? Why bother to find sources? Perhaps we need to beg Mr Brussel if he will autorise and approve if we can write in his private article? -- Carolus ( talk) 14:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Hopefully you realize that most of the 'information' I deleted was false, fake, untrue and foremost not sourced. I also know that you are some one who doesn't dispose of the most reliable sources and that you add 'information' on WP:EN because of you all of a sudden dispose of randomly found or outdated sources. Finding the most reliable sources, and the most recent ones, studying them and filter their importance is one of the problems you have, I know from all the years following you, I am afraid. Luckily WP:NL has been partly saved of you - WP:EN is not (yet). Paul Brussel ( talk) 21:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately we can't possibly say that you have a 'wonderful history' on WP:NL, on the contrary: it is not without reason that you are blocked there. Paul Brussel ( talk) 01:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Andreas Philopater,

Given your vote in the RM on Talk:Free City of Cracow, I thought you might be interested in the discussion going on there now.

Genealogizer ( talk) 16:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I kindly added your name, hope you do not mind, regards. -- Carolus ( talk) 00:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

You recently participated in a discussion of the title of Free City of Cracow. A similar discussion is now being held at Talk:Grand Duchy of Cracow if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  02:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hey, can you please tell me where this person enters as Chancellor of Brabant? The Het Schouwburg der Nederlanden ofte geographische en historische ..., Volume 1 does not mention him? thank you.-- Carolus ( talk) 22:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

He's listed here, but Gaillard doesn't mention him. I've been meaning to go through Gaillard systematically but haven't got round to it. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 20:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks for your reply, it was just confusing. regards,-- Carolus ( talk) 20:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

You created a prince that does not exist, says Fram; He is realy an idiot.-- Carolus ( talk) 12:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:NPA. Plus, please tell me where I said that? Read what I actually said instead of jumping at shadows. Fram ( talk) 12:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I see nothing on the talk page of the article in question. Please raise concerns there. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 12:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

OK, I will copy the discussion, no problem.-- Carolus ( talk) 21:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you participated in the requested move, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 ( talk) 05:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, sorry but we already have an article on this person under the name Girolamo Cattaneo! I've redirected your article and moved the categories over. Blythwood ( talk) 16:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Stupid of me. Thanks! --˜˜˜˜

Contrary to what you publicly stated, I have no problems with the Jesuits. But I do have a problem with promo, sources not conform WP:RS and substandard quality. The Banner  talk 10:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The Banner, I have nowhere stated that you have problems with the Jesuits. First you deny vandalism without being accused of it, now you seem to be denying a lack of impartiality without being accused of it. What makes you think people might make such accusations? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 14:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I did say you were on a rampage through articles associated with Jesuits, but I don't think you can seriously deny that. And there's no implication intended on my part that what motivates it is animus against Jesuits. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 14:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply

And in case it isn't clear, the implication of saying you have been on a rampage is that you have been making edits to lots of related articles in a relatively short time, with the praiseworthy aim to excising promotional material, but the speed at which you have been doing so will tend to be detrimental to the judiciousness of the edits. In a couple of articles you have cut out swathes of reputable third-party sources because some of them (not even all of them) said good things about the subject of the article. You may think such references were only included to make the subject look good, and you may be right in thinking that, but you have nevertheless been over-pruning some articles, and over-hastily taking others to AfD. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 14:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I am indeed cleaning up articles from promo, info based on non-independent sources, info based on plain unsuitable sources conform WP:RS, irrelevant info, unsourced info and info not backed up by the given sources. And I am able to judge poor translations from Dutch. The Banner  talk 16:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Ow, and I regard parties as irrelevant, like existing 50 years and so. The Banner  talk 16:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I have no doubt it is your intention to do that, but in your haste you are also cutting out references to reputable third-party sources, and taking articles to AfD that would be perfectly acceptable with some pretty minimal clean-up. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 22:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello Andreas Philopater, I saw that you are one of the authors of School strike for climate article. Because I am looking for ways to reduce the environmental impact of Wikipedia itself, I wanted to ask you to check out the Sustainability Initiative and to add your name to the list of supporters so that I can show that many community members are behind this effort. Thanks! -- Gnom ( talk) 08:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of victims of the Bazar de la Charité fire 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/List of victims of the Bazar de la Charité fire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 13:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for making this page! Lucy Dacus is a great artist and deserves to be recognized Lamarlana01 ( talk) 18:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Category:1795 in the Austrian Netherlands, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I did the revert based on the original edit, before IP user added the definite article - they must have put it in while I was reading the diff. I'm afraid I read 'cause of' as an abbreviation of 'because of', which didn't make any sense - it didn't occur to me that adding 'the' at the beginning would make it OK, and my haste to revert meant I missed that they'd actually done that. So, rebuke accepted. I'll apologise to the IP too. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply

To quote wp:v "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports" that means any text that is challenged must be properly sourced to an RS. Now this is a warning, stop trying to use AGF as a means of circumventing verification. If you do so I will report you. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Slatersteven There is already "an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports", so by your measure the requirement is fully satisfied. Your inability to accept that the standard you insist on has already been met is baffling. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 18:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Neither page 26 nor page 27 contain anything to support the text I added [ [1]] as far as I can see, it might support "and Issac was ordered to check his cellar", but it does not support a wholesale search of all Jewish homes. This might be what I misread. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

It also does not support this edit [ [2]] as it in fact says they searched it two days earlier (not one). This is why someone who can actually check the whole source (rather than relying on a preview in google books) needs to verify it. As it maybe it I did read passages I no longer have access to.

You really should not be telling an editor who adds material and then removed it as unverified that it has been verified. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I regard you as responsible for your edits. My concern is with the removal of sourced and verifiable material. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 19:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Except the edits I was talking about I added, and could not verify when I was asked to. If I cannot verify material I added I must remove it. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Whereas the edits I was talking about were my edits that Edit5001 removed because he thought them "sweeping changes", even though they are verifiable (with the proviso that the precise chronology of searches was unclear). -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 18:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

This is my last word on the matter, You first commented about this in the thread I stated about the "Second search", which had noting to do with your edits. You then started "Following the sources" with comments about " but we can't edit the article in line with it because some people can "only see it in preview" , as I was the first (And indeed only person before your thread) to talk about being unable to verify something in preview (in relation to my edit (and thread) about the "second search") it was logical to assume you were talking about my edits (and not yours, none of which have been challenged due to preview not enabling verification). If you continue to push this matter I will take it to ANI. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid I don't know what "matter" it is you think I'm "pushing". If you think ANI would settle the matter (which looks to me like an issue of editing one page in line with sources), by all means get them involved. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 22:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you sincerely for staying civil (and accurate, and persistent) in the face of whatever the bleep is happening over in Simon of Trent's talk page. Last1in ( talk) 21:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, would you mind taking a look at the recent edits made to Simon of Trent? A surprising amount of material has been removed by a user without an account but I can't tell if this editing is unconstructive/ideological or not. Many thanks, Akakievich ( talk) 00:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks Akakievich. It seems to have been a copy-paste attempt to return the article to the state it was in at the end of March, when the lead paragraph said Simon was "a boy [...] whose disappearance and murder was committed by the leaders of the city's Jewish community" (with committed by rather than blamed on – itself an edit from the same IP address). -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 12:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the creation of Agnoiology, ( Revision 20:59, 5 June 2020‎). I have modified the entry of {{ EB1911}} to link to the article on Wikisource ( diff). If you put in a citation to EB1911 in future please try to use "wstitle=" by default and only use "title=" if there is no wikisource available. If there is no wikisource available please consider linking via a "url=" to a copy of the article on another site (see EB1911#Free, public-domain sources for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica text -- PBS ( talk) 14:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello As for the hyperlink change in the King Leopold II Statue page, the country linked is the Republic of Congo, which gained independence from the French. Wouldn't the correct country (now) be the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Thanks in advance

Hello ThvbeVB, thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 11:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

What is your evidence for your assertion here, please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 12:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

This would be a good place to start. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 12:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

So you want it changed to something meaningful, which would be good, but in the meantime you lazily changed it back to something that makes no sense? Nice move. I have temporarily fixed it for you pending your doing it properly. However, if you wish childishly to revert it again to your lazy, nonsensical version please go ahead as I can't be bothered to take any further interest in that page or this. DBaK ( talk) 12:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

It's the common English name (see "English+Nation"+"Antwerp"&source=bl&ots=_Uq7SnTR9M&sig=ACfU3U1wRXdfvFnGBa0bvyDWU1ikGZcsBA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJ4ufRi7HqAhXJ2KQKHcK5BTMQ6AEwDHoECA4QAQ#v=onepage&q="English Nation" "Antwerp"&f=false), as used even in the Encyclopedia Britannica (not exactly an obscure source in a foreign language). -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 12:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Dear Andreas Philopater. Please excuse that I am so late to come back to you regarding the picture of James Earl of Abercorn. You were so right! You probably remember that you removed such a picture from the article James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn. This image is a stipple engraving showing a clean-shaven man in parliamentary robes wearing a shoulder-length wig. You argued that "The wig is a give-away that this is not c.1600" and referred to Getty Images, which "identifies the image as of the 6th Earl ( https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/james-earl-of-james-hamilton-6th-earl-of-abercorn-portrait-news-photo/1137575032)". You were so right. It is only today that I found that the British Museum has a print of that same engraving under museum number 1852,0612.310 where the subject is identified as the 6th earl of Abercorn. So I added the image to the article James Hamilton, 6th Earl of Abercorn, where it belongs as you told me. With many thanks, Johannes Schade ( talk) 08:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Dear Johannes Schade, thanks for getting back to me about that. Glad that it got cleared up! -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 14:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.-- Max9844419087 ( talk) 14:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

No, Max9844419087, you seem to be having WP:OWNERSHIP issues. If you can't bear to see other editors altering text on a page you've so lovingly crafted, Wikipedia probably isn't the place to be putting stuff online. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 15:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Andreas Philopater, you are trying to have it your own way, going as far as casting doubts over recognized acceptations of English-language words. Such actions are taken very seriously here, I can tell you that. I do accept suggestions (on my English) when they come from people born into an English speaking family and country. i.e. you are not the right person to suggest edits (in that respect). You are suggesting edits on English-language related matters in an article on a painting executed by a Flemish painter in the 16th century, and the fact that you are Belgian does't make you any more fit.-- Max9844419087 ( talk) 15:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Max9844419087, wherever did you get the idea that I'm Belgian? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 15:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I will paste here my reply on Bril's talk page. And reiterate that for me that's it.

Your previous comment (whose original form will remain accessible forever to reviewers, editors and readers) evinces both your partiality and pretentiousness. You have sough out to grieve me with the speculative and uncalled for comment "yet I have no problem imagining that you are not an artist despite your editing articles about art", while my pointing out that being Belgian doesn't make you the better fit individual to tell an English speaker how to write English was a functional comment, and a fact. I won't engage in discussion with you anymore. Be careful on how you behave on this and any other similar websites. This is a joint effort to widen people's knowledge and help them out, there's no place far edit warring, cheap rhetoric and harassment. And that's it.-- Max9844419087 ( talk) 15:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Max9844419087, whatever makes you think I'm trying to grieve you? You pile one assumption upon another. I'm just trying to get you to apply the Manual of Style. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 15:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Andreas Philopater You did, it is discernible from your comments. I assume you are Belgian or a non native speaker first of all from the fact that you asked me that. Secondly, it's just the way you talk. I don't know how to explain that. "Can I take it that[...]?" Yeah, you just feel it. I take it that you are taking it out on me for your shortcomings. Why, this is possibly your life, so I do understand, to an extent. But that still isn't fair. You have been two decades here on Wikipedia, and was not even able to write off a decent user's page. I produced more valuable material in two weeks, than you did in two decades. You think you can pass by with your pretentious talk. You think that writing two words in French from a computer with an internet connection and making some cheap historical allusions makes you smart. You remind me myself at 17 years old. A "pimply know-it-all," Virginia Woolf would say. People trying to hint at their verosimile erudition in their speech evinces their factual poor instruction and low IQ. This is what they teach us at psychology courses in college, a place where you have probably never been. As for any administrator reading this: they won't alter o delete the present paragraph or my comment, as they deemed the above user's rhetoric legit. Attempting to suppress my reply and opinion would be unjust. Finally, I reiterate my point: oeuvre is perfectly legit, and you should edit in your own language. Even better, don't edit at all.-- Max9844419087 ( talk) 17:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC) And yet the very fact that you live here, and eat off here shows your life achievements. reply

Max9844419087, I do somehow seem to have touched a nerve, but I take no pleasure in that, nor indeed any credit for it: it seems to be more due to the scenarios you imagine to lie behind my words than to anything I have actually said. Having studied psychology, you will be able to name and explain that phenomenon much better than I could. On the substantive point, I'm very glad that you've revised the sentence to make it more readable, and I thank you for it. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 18:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Adding notification since Max failed to do so:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Schazjmd  (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi. I noticed that you have created (or significantly expanded) a few articles about Flemish historical figures who were masters of requests in the Habsburg Netherlands. Unfortunately, Wikipedia only has articles about those specific job titles in England and France, and Master of Requests itself is a disambiguation page, which ideally should be transformed into a broad-concept article about the general concept of a master of requests, with summaries of the specifics of that role in different places. I'm wondering if, given your apparent expertise and interest in that area, you would like to take a shot at writing that article, even if just a stub. Feel free to say no, of course, but I figured it's worth a try :) Lennart97 ( talk) 21:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC) reply

It was on my mental list of "things to get round to eventually". Thanks for the prod! -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 22:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC) reply

No problem, and keep up the good work! Lennart97 ( talk) 22:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Anyway, I've made a start. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 00:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much! It is with great joy that I will now move Master of Requests from the top of To do, where it has been for many months, to done on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/January 2021, with the note "no longer a disambig page". Lennart97 ( talk) 00:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marguerite Putsage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hainaut.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Lets bring the double bolding issue to the relevant MOS page. Where is that? And note that the difference is in accenting - not spelling - and not accenting in his native language, nor in English, but in a third language - so I doubt the MOS covers it. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:3149:3717:C069:21B6 ( talk) 03:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

• I have no idea how MOS discussions work, so can't help you there. Kadare lives in France and several of his works were translated into English from French rather than from Albanian, so the French version of his name (under which those works were published) is probably a valid search term that really ought to be a redirect (and so really ought to be in bold). -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 19:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I love the irony. Thanks Polyamorph ( talk) 10:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Hallo Andreas Philopater, omdat je dit artikel aanmaakte, vroeg ik me af of te achterhalen is of dit: Gezicht op een lage zaal in Vlaamse stijl in het hotel van Edouard van den Corput in Brussel, België Bruxelles aan deze Édouard van den Corput toebehoorde. Thanks. Lotje ( talk) 04:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Hi Lotje, I've been out of things for a while but I really couldn't tell you anyway. Sorry. Although seeing it says "senator" it will presumably have been him. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 15:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks Andreas Philopater, I added it to the category at commons. :-) Lotje ( talk) 16:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:1615 in the Habsburg Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the notification @ Liz. It would be useful to have some indication of why it is now empty. How have the former contents been recategorised? --19:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Andreas Philopater ( talk) 19:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:1796 in the Southern Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:1809 in the Southern Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:1800s establishments in the Southern Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:1800s in the Southern Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Again, it would be useful to know why the categories have been emptied. How have the articles that were in these categories been recategorised? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 13:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Category:1510 establishments in the Habsburg Netherlands has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

This category is part of a larger nomination that you may also have authored. – Aidan721 ( talk) 14:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:1553 in the Habsburg Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:1607 in the Habsburg Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:1620 in the Habsburg Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:1663 in the Habsburg Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, Andreas Philopater,

Even if you remove the CSD tag from an empty category, it will still be deleted in a week if it remains empty. Please do not remove the CSD C1 tag unless the category is no longer empty. Removing the tag doesn't stop a deletion in 7 days, having the category no longer be empty will (although the contents have to be appropriate articles for the category). Simply removing the tag when the category is still empty serves no purpose and is disruptive. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Liz so what exactly is the point of depopulating categories without notification, and then giving notification of something inevitable? And how is it disruptive to remove a tag if that has no effect anyway? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, I translated (via Deepl, but always checking for possible errors, e.g. Deepl thought Eupen was lost to Germany after WWI :-) the part on the historical process to Fusion of the Belgian municipalities. The XXIth c. part remains to be expanded on the article here. As it is mostly a Flemish topics, I guess it will mostly need translation from the nl article. I could do it, but later, as it will take time to convert the ref system from nl to en. Also, I frankly doubt that part will be very interesting for the "general reader", as the nl article deals mostly with lists. Minorities observer ( talk) 14:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I've done a bit of copy-editing on your work. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 20:27, 8 November 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply