A user with 80 edits. Account created on 18 July 2022.
9 April 2024
- 17:12 17:12, 9 April 2024 diff hist +1,575 N Draft:Siege of Marchiennes ←Created page with '{{Infobox military conflict | conflict = Siege of Marchiennes (1712) | partof = the War of the Spanish Succession | date = 25 July – 30 July 1712<br/>({{Age in years, months, weeks and days|month1=7|day1=25|year1=1712|month2=7|day2=30|year2=1712}}) | place = Marchiennes, France | coordinates = {{coord|50.4089|3.2831|display=inline,title}} | result = French victory | combatant1 = {{flagcountry|Kingdom of France}} | combat...' Tag: harv-error
- 16:53 16:53, 9 April 2024 diff hist +85 Siege of Bouchain (1712) All of the numbers are based on Bodart, why casualty list should be different? Please stop being inconsistent and enjoy your dutch fanfiction elsewhere.
18 August 2023
- 20:53 20:53, 18 August 2023 diff hist +52 Battle of Fontenoy No edit summary Tag: Reverted
9 August 2023
- 06:48 06:48, 9 August 2023 diff hist +252 Talk:Battle of Malplaquet →Casualties, for the last time: Reply Tag: Reply
8 August 2023
- 13:10 13:10, 8 August 2023 diff hist +906 Talk:Battle of Malplaquet →Casualties, for the last time: Reply Tag: Reply
- 07:20 07:20, 8 August 2023 diff hist 0 m Battle of Malplaquet wrong page
- 07:06 07:06, 8 August 2023 diff hist +93 Battle of Malplaquet READ the talk page before vandalizing the article with misleading information. You cannot quote authors on French casualties while leaving out the same authors' numbers on Allied casualties. The breakdown is detailed in the talk page. Tag: harv-error
7 August 2023
- 19:10 19:10, 7 August 2023 diff hist +1,620 Talk:Assault on Nijmegen (1702) →Solution to the edit conflict: Reply Tag: Reply
- 18:45 18:45, 7 August 2023 diff hist +1,670 Talk:Battle of Malplaquet No edit summary
- 17:59 17:59, 7 August 2023 diff hist +852 Talk:Assault on Nijmegen (1702) →Solution to the edit conflict: Reply Tag: Reply
- 17:30 17:30, 7 August 2023 diff hist +834 Talk:Assault on Nijmegen (1702) No edit summary
- 16:50 16:50, 7 August 2023 diff hist +1,019 Talk:Assault on Nijmegen (1702) →Solution to the edit conflict: Reply Tag: Reply
- 15:24 15:24, 7 August 2023 diff hist +778 Talk:Assault on Nijmegen (1702) No edit summary
- 14:53 14:53, 7 August 2023 diff hist +667 Talk:Assault on Nijmegen (1702) No edit summary
- 14:36 14:36, 7 August 2023 diff hist +256 Assault on Nijmegen (1702) Undid revision 1169174942 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) I am adding CN because you make unsourced claims unlike me. I am still waiting for your sources that you are unable to provide. Tags: Undo harv-error
- 14:35 14:35, 7 August 2023 diff hist +118 Battle of Ekeren Undid revision 1169174749 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) The onus is on you to prove the validity of those reasons on the talk page. Until then, I am adding him as a reliable and authoritative source that he is. This is a source of neutral information, not of your one-sided patriotic fantasies. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 14:29 14:29, 7 August 2023 diff hist +256 Assault on Nijmegen (1702) Undid revision 1169173988 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) Everything I write is sourced too. I did not delete a single sentence you wrote. Please read the article before reverting. Tags: Undo Reverted harv-error
- 14:28 14:28, 7 August 2023 diff hist +118 Battle of Ekeren Undid revision 1169173724 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) All I did was to add Bodart, whose authority cannot be questionned on Wikipedia and whose figures are the backbone of casualty rates in many articles. If you think your information is more accurate that Bodart's, refer to the Talk page and provide tangible verified data (not Original research by your and robinvp), until then you have no right to delete it. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 14:24 14:24, 7 August 2023 diff hist +256 Assault on Nijmegen (1702) Reworded the article by adding non-Dutch sources to reflect a more neutral stance. Tags: Reverted harv-error
- 14:12 14:12, 7 August 2023 diff hist +118 Battle of Ekeren Undid revision 1169171234 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) All the conclusions that you or robinvp may reach about Bodart are yours alone, and are a case of original research. You just admitted to deleting my entries because you don't like what Bodart writes, except the times when it suits your imagined narrative. Why don't you delete all Bodart figures then, including 14T French loss in Malplaquet? Tags: Undo Reverted
- 13:47 13:47, 7 August 2023 diff hist −79 Assault on Nijmegen (1702) Undid revision 1169169021 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) You have yet to give a single example of cited content that I deleted. Tags: Undo Reverted harv-error
- 13:46 13:46, 7 August 2023 diff hist +118 Battle of Ekeren Undid revision 1169168922 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) There is not discussion. I am adding informations from a reputable and authoritative source that happens to change the prevailing Dutch chauvinistic consensus that you put all over the article, completely disregarding all neutrality. Once again - add your sources, do not delete mine that are verifiable and valid. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 13:32 13:32, 7 August 2023 diff hist −79 Assault on Nijmegen (1702) Undid revision 1169165805 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) Not a single sentence I deleted is unsourced. Please add your sources like I did. Tags: Undo Reverted harv-error
- 13:31 13:31, 7 August 2023 diff hist +118 Battle of Ekeren Undid revision 1169167359 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) "No he isn't" is not a valid reply and is indicative of your immaturity and inability to face the facts. I am still expecting the 40,000 men source that you are unwilling or unable to provide. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 13:24 13:24, 7 August 2023 diff hist +118 Battle of Ekeren Undid revision 1169165665 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) You can explain whatever you want but by no means delete it. In terms of casualties, he is an indisputed reference and is by miles superior to any unknown local dutch historians that have been never quoted on this wiki by anyone but you. Pull ridiculous figures and engage in patriotic fantasies however you like but not at the expense of actual data and historical integrity. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 13:11 13:11, 7 August 2023 diff hist +88 Siege of Ath (1697) No edit summary
- 13:10 13:10, 7 August 2023 diff hist −83 Siege of Ath (1697) No edit summary
- 13:07 13:07, 7 August 2023 diff hist −79 Assault on Nijmegen (1702) Undid revision 1169164570 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) As stated, you may add your citations by Wijn, Churchill or whoever, but you have no right to delete those of Bodart that present a view that you disagree with. This is what neutrality means. I have not deleted a single sourced quote. Tags: Undo Reverted harv-error
- 13:05 13:05, 7 August 2023 diff hist +118 Battle of Ekeren Undid revision 1169164783 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) You are in no capacity of arguing what figures are fringe and what are not, especially in regards to Bodart. Take your original research elsewhere. I cited correct and verifiable numbers from a reliable source. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 12:56 12:56, 7 August 2023 diff hist +118 Battle of Ekeren Undid revision 1169160939 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) There is nothing to discuss on the talk pages. I am adding sourced content, you are deleting it. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 12:50 12:50, 7 August 2023 diff hist −79 Assault on Nijmegen (1702) Undid revision 1169162187 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) Marked for you the unsourced parts. Everything I wrote is, on the contrary, sourced and easily verifiable. Tags: Undo Reverted harv-error
- 12:49 12:49, 7 August 2023 diff hist +134 Battle of Malplaquet Undid revision 1169162140 by Eastfarthingan ( talk) You are engaging in orinigal research by arbitrarily choosing numbers you do and don't like. Every author that claims the French lost 14T men (Bodart, Corvisier, Chandler, Lynn) also put Allied lost at 25. If you put French at 14T, you must put Allied at 25T. End of discussion. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 12:34 12:34, 7 August 2023 diff hist −79 Assault on Nijmegen (1702) Undid revision 1169148532 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) All the content deleted is uncited. I suggest you stop flooding articles with one-sided Dutch outlook and stop deleting sources you disagree with. Tags: Reverted harv-error
- 12:19 12:19, 7 August 2023 diff hist +118 Battle of Ekeren I have not deleted a single line of your "cited" content. Do you actually take time to look at the changed you are reverting? You just cannot exclude Bodart from sources because he does not agree with your countrymen chauvinist fantasies. He is also a far more authoritative source, so it's up for debate whose numbers can be considered "fringe". Tag: Reverted
- 11:34 11:34, 7 August 2023 diff hist +236 Battle of Ekeren Undid revision 1169153332 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) As stated, feel free to add your sources instead of edit warring. I supplemented the article with mine, and you have no right to delete them. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 11:22 11:22, 7 August 2023 diff hist +134 Battle of Malplaquet Undid revision 1169152628 by Robinvp11 ( talk) Once more, I already DROPPED Delbrück and I DO NOT include 30T figure for the sake of compromise. What I am including now, is the 25T figure given by THE VERY SAME HISTORIANS who claim French lost 14T men (Bodart, Corvisier, Chandler, Lynn). If you quote French losses put forth by these authors, you MUST also quote their estimates for Allies instead of deleting them. Do you follow? Tags: Undo Reverted
- 11:01 11:01, 7 August 2023 diff hist +134 Battle of Malplaquet Undid revision 1169152005 by Robinvp11 ( talk) There is no discussion, you choose sources, and delete parts that you disagree with. I repeat ONCE again - those who claim that the French lost 14,000 men that you included in the article ALSO claim that the allies lost more than 25T. The authors and the respective pages are all in the article. Is it too much to ask you to show a modicum historical integrity ? Tags: Undo Reverted
- 10:58 10:58, 7 August 2023 diff hist +236 Battle of Ekeren Undid revision 1169149239 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) "Some" are Churchill whose book is literally listed as "panegyrical" on Wikipedia. Some real historians like Delbrück also claim Allied losses to be more than 30T at Malplaquet, and yet you keep deleting those. Stop deleting the sources you disagree with and feel free to include yours in the article. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 10:45 10:45, 7 August 2023 diff hist +134 Battle of Malplaquet This is an egregious bias to show the absolute minimal casualty rate for the Allies while giving the most accepted for the French. The figure of NO LESS THAN 25T Allied casualties is cited by Bodart, Corvisier, Chandler and Lynn who also give the 11-14T French cas. that you are so eager to selectively quote. On what grounds do you refuse their addition? Tag: Reverted
- 10:25 10:25, 7 August 2023 diff hist +236 Battle of Ekeren No edit summary Tag: Reverted
- 10:04 10:04, 7 August 2023 diff hist −138 Assault on Nijmegen (1702) Removed wrong and uncited segments, making the article more neutral. Tags: Reverted harv-error
- 09:43 09:43, 7 August 2023 diff hist +282 Battle of Malplaquet Undid revision 1169143056 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) The 30T estimate is supported by Delbruck, Périni, de Quincy, with most auth.sources agreeing on at least 25T (Bodart, Chandler, Lynn). H.Delbruck is far more esteemed a historian that any dutch panegyrist whose works are never published nor read outside of NL that you quote, yet I leave them in. Stop vandalizing the article and revert to Robinvpv's consensus on the matter. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 09:05 09:05, 7 August 2023 diff hist +282 Battle of Malplaquet The previous figures were approximatives from different historians in order to prevent edit wars, as "what is written in the article" can vary a lot depending on whom you quote with difference in highs and lows reaching some 10,000 men. The discussion stopped because there was a tacit agreement to not use partisan numbers, and to act in bad faith, which is visibly not your case. If you don't stop vandalizing the article, I will bring up the issue to administrators. Tag: Reverted
6 August 2023
- 21:16 21:16, 6 August 2023 diff hist −7 Battle of Malplaquet Undid revision 1168894404 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) We have already been there multiple times and the matter was settled through compromise. Do not make me intervene again by provoking another edit war. You have been warned. Tags: Undo Reverted
18 July 2023
- 20:53 20:53, 18 July 2023 diff hist +305 Battle of Barcelona No edit summary
2 July 2023
- 08:33 08:33, 2 July 2023 diff hist −10 Battle of Malplaquet "why a German historian writing during WWI might exaggerate Allied losses" - idk if you are being ignorant on purpose, but "Allies" in WWI does NOT equal "Allies" in WoSS. Prussia like many German states were "Allies" in WoSS, fighting against France, and as Prussophile as Delbrück was, he had not interest in exaggerating their losses. We also agreed NOT to mention historians' nationality, otherwise please add that every one who claims French lost 17T men is Dutch. Your addition reeks of bias.
1 July 2023
- 21:53 21:53, 1 July 2023 diff hist +180 Battle of Malplaquet Undid revision 1162896147 by DavidDijkgraaf ( talk) As I said in the previous message, I did not edit anything. I only supplemented the article with De Périni's data on casualties. I suggest you first read what you are about to revert before doing so. Tag: Undo
- 16:34 16:34, 1 July 2023 diff hist +180 Battle of Malplaquet I'll have you know that Bodart and Delbrück are ones of the most esteemed historians in the domain, the former having dedicated his life to calculating war-time casualties, unlike the forgotten Dutch panegyrist on Malborough's family pay that you quote. I suggest you inquire on how 18th century court authors worked, and why no historian takes, f.e., Voltaire's "Life of Charles XII" for a valid historical source. Have it your way with the supposed "intercepted letter", but I am adding Perini too. Tag: Reverted
- 08:40 08:40, 1 July 2023 diff hist +60 Battle of Malplaquet Not a single trace of this "intercepted letter" was ever found in any other source than De Vryers. According to Périni, the Allies lost 40T, while the French only 7T. Do you want me to include this in the list? Bodart and Delbrück have the most convincing casualty figures (11-14T / 24-30T for France / Allies respectively). Anything that goes way above or below that (Perini/De Vryer) is most likely a partisan conjecture. Tags: Reverted harv-error
30 June 2023
- 21:14 21:14, 30 June 2023 diff hist +619 Battle of Malplaquet No edit summary Tag: harv-error
