User talk:DeKoning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the New Netherland article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my editing, please feel free to discuss it on the talk page; it's kinda hard to work with someone who refuses to discuss issues. I'm afraid there's simply no getting around this copyright issue: it simply puts the Wikimedia Foundation in a very bad place legally to have any unlicensed copyrighted text in articles. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights if you have any questions about it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The map at New Netherland

Hello Koning, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not keep removing the map of New Netherlands and New Sweden from the article again; it was probably made by a wikipedian for these two articles, so yes it is surely "of recent creation". Also, please DO NOT SHOUT on talk pages. And finally, please sign your comments. Thanks. //Big Adamsky 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The New Sweden map has the wrong caption is recently drawn by someone whose interpretation is not historically factual and belongs solely on the New Sweden site rather than the New Netherland site.

DeKoning

[edit] Some Neutral Advice

Dear DeKoning: re: belongs solely on the New Sweden site rather than the New Netherland site.

I happened to browse through this articles talk page arguement, and decided that you are in need of WP:EQ and advice from a neutral party.

• • I was amazed that anyone can argue so stubbornly that a historical map which has an educational purpose like the article which uses it, is being claimed for the sole use of another article page. History does not just happen within one terratory to one set of people. Those people and those terratories have neighbors, and they all impact one another and share a part of their history in common. And don't share part, which is why there are seperate articles.
  • If there is an alternative-interpretation of the history that you disagree with, then it is wikipolicy (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) to present both sides of the contention. Not to get hot headed and abuse editors who are trying to do a complete and thourough job to a high academic standard. If this contention is not rooted in the work of other verifiable sources (WP:V ), but your own pet theory, then the NOR guideline applies, and this is not it's venue. Perhaps if you work hard and put together your viewpoint you can get it published in a reputable journal such as the sources these editors are using in building a quality article.
  • In my experience, people arguing so out of control have a personal interpretation, usually based on personal values and frequently on nationalism in some way. The best thing to do is to raise your POV on the talk, and leave the article to others who can look at it with neutral eyes untainted by the emotion you are so embarrassingly wearing on your sleeve.
  • Your edits are all recent and all aimed squarely at a narrow range of topics, which is OK as a beginner, but the strong emotion is out of line at any time; cultivate a professional detachment. If you can't look at an issue from both sides, walk away from the topic and find something that won't give you a heart attack while demanding others waste their free time dealing with your lack of professionalism.
  • I've been editing wiki for over a year making well over 500 significant edits and hundreds moreof little tweak edits, and there are five or less than occasions where I've found it justified to use a revert — and every single one of them was because of someone's temper and personal outlook got the better of them. It is far better to ask the person making the offensive edit to change it "because... ", then conduct a reasoned dispassionate debate on the matter in a professional respective manner. That's the best way to revert something—reach a consensus.
  • Think of how beligerent it is from the other persons shoes. What you are saying is "All your hard work and effort is crap". Do you really want to be that rude?

Best Wishes, and Welcome to Wikipedia. But keep in mind we are a culture, one that evolves slowly like any culture, and all who enter our community are expected to have the sense to see that our butchers don't work in the smithy, and the coopers don't do dressmaking. And the sidewalks are for walking on, not riding horses along.

Most everyone you meet will be glad to lend a hand, but the onus is on you to try to pick up things on your own too. Browsing WP:AfD, WP:AN, and WP:RfC and the Village Pump (WP:VP) a lot at first is probably the best way to get a sense of the the culture's do's, don'ts, and ways of doing business.

If you poke around in WP:AN, you'll be able to see a lot of the bad things to not do by following the trouble back to where they occur. You may even find yourself mentioned–I don't know. Make sure when visiting an article to see the Talk page and give it a thourough perusal especially A) before editing it B) on those contentious matters, and C) including WP:AfD articles being voted upon, and get to know the ropes in the place.

We mostly manage to have fun here, or we wouldn't throw our spare time into it day after day. It'd be a shame if you didn't enjoy it too. Join in that part and leave the heat for something that doesn't engage you so much that your emotions cloud your dispassionate judgement... for example, see talk: 1632 (novel) where I got reamed after a twelvefold expansion. No big Deal. If I can help, drop me a note or better yet email me. Mine is posted prominently on my talk page.

Oh, one last thing--was hard for me to get a grip on, so I should urge you to not repeat my mistake--WikiCulture expects you to crawl and snoop and if you like, steal things on and from the talk pages and user pages of more experienced users. It is a good way to learn the graphics tricks that some use to make fancy pages, to learn use of color, etc. Most all will have a list of useful links. Copy them between two browser windows and make them your own. If you'll expend a little energy that way each day, you'll soon learn how to not try and bake at the icemans! Hope this helps. Best wishes, FrankB 16:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

FrankB, I fully agree. However, I am not stubborn, just picky. The maps is neither a geographical map nor a population distribution map. Nothing more to say. DeKoning

[edit] Cornelius Jacobsen Mey

Hey there! I noticed that you're using the name Cornelis Jacobsz May in the article Cornelius Jacobsen Mey. If you think the article belongs at the former title you can request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Usually we try to keep the title of an article and the name used in that article consistent. Also, settling where the article belongs might help establish a consistent name to use throughout Wikipedia, as we're currently all over the place with this guy. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that there was only one director-general 1647-1664 and one governor 1673-1674 of New Netherland. Cornelius Jacobsen Mey is the least used or worst spelling of his name. Use therefore the 17th century spelling of Cornelis Jacobsz May which is also the spelling as used in Cape May. I have left out the dot after the z which is usually included in the Dutch spelling to connote an abbreviation of the word "zoon" but would confuse the English reader. Although May had been in the Hudson River in 1613 and the Delaware River in 1620, he became only director of New Netherland in 1624. Your 1620 date is therefore neither here nor there. You also forgot to mention the fourth director (out of seven) which I have mentioned somewhere else. Again, if you are interested in physics you know that formulas have certain outcomes which are precise. In history, when dealing with the facts, the same is valid and to be imprecise or sloppy is no history at all. I am astonished by your insistence of posting the New Netherland-New Sweden map on either article. This has nothing to do with nationalist fervor or one-sided passion as one editor seems to suggest. It is all about trying to deal with ignorance. Cheers. April 28, 2006. DeKoning

I'm sorry you misinterpreted the intent of my message. I was simply trying to be helpful in pointing you to the location where you could rectify the inconsistency in naming if you choose. If you believe the article is not at the correct name, you may follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)