User talk:Ad43

Hello Ad43! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- LittleOldMe 12:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Stop implementing your false version of low rhenish, and do not accuse me of not discussing the matter. I was the one, not you, who started a talk page discussion in the first place.Rex 21:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Rex I invited you to do so, because of your lack of argumentation. Don't try to intimidate me either. Stay cool and cooperative, as long as possible. Ad43 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

Again, I invited you, you did not invite me. Do not lie. Also, I find it to be hypocritical when someone, who makes personal attacks to compensate his own lack of argumentation, speaks ofstaying cool and cooperative.Rex 19:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Rex I invited you to do so, on the history page of the article edits at 18:26, 9 December 2006, with the following words: Ad43 (Talk | contribs) (The other changes were unnecessary. If you would argue this, please do so on the discussion page. Don't change the text on mysterious grounds). Now, who is the liar here?

Your second remark is even more beyond the facts and is disgraceful by any standard. This is entirely your view, I will pay no further attention to it. Ad43 01:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Ad43. Who started the discussion on the talk page, even before you made the "let's discuss thing on the talk page remark"? That's right, I did. Not you, me.

When you started that discussion with [Rex 18:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)] , I interpreted as a reaction to my invitation of [18:26, 9 December 2006]. Would you suggest that there was no connection between the two? And if I should be wrong, and there weren't any, could that possibly turn me into a liar??

As in defence of the my "disgraceful" second remark. It's true what I said. You do insult people, and make personal attacks, you give people some wacko psychoanalysis, and you do all of this to (try to) divert the attention of the real deal, which is about you being unable to provide reliable references.Rex 10:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, all I do is denying you the right to put vicious and fundamentalist demands on innocent collegues. That's what must be cleared out in the first place. If a little psychoanalysis might be useful to that end, that won't hurt. Sometimes some people must be confronted with themselves. They should be grateful that they get it free and in time. Ad43 13:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do make personal attacks. For examply in this link you say I should get profesional help. Do you know what I call people who keep denying they didn't do something even though there is rock hard evidence they did do it? Bad liars.Rex 14:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you able then to see the joke of it? Ad43 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... now it's a joke isn't it? Pathetic. I've seen trolls who made up better excuses.Rex 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree, it was a layered joke. Good jokes are never flat. They are bold. Ad43 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know a personal attack when I see one, stop this idiocy.Rex 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But do you always recognise a joke when you encounter one? Ad43 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am fedd up with your ridiculous behaviour Ad43, if anyone should see a shrink it's you.Rex 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree. Ad43 22:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common knowledge of all well-educated Dutch people (quite a qualifier by itself!) and the self-evidence of 1560s matter may be enough in other places (e.g. the Dutch Wikipedia, which has a remarkably more relaxed application of the Wikipedia rules of evidence) but not here. In view of WP:BITE may I ask you in the most friendly way not to take the Citation needed words out of the article. Let other people have a go at it. Thanks! -- Iterator12n ^Talk 18:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience, I've just added a reference. You're welcome. Ad43 11:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ad43, I saw your reverted a vandal; thanks a lot, the necessary task of the good faith editor.

It is customary to mention this in the edit summary (e.g. revert vandalism by) as this will give other editors notification why you undid the revision. Furthermore, if an IP or editor is building up a history of vandalism, this IP or editor maybe blocked. Therefore you may consider placing a warning on their talk page. This will tell future editors who run into the same vandal that this is a repeat offender and may trigger reporting the vandal to get the editor/IP (by the way if you encounter a vandal who is rereverting you vandalism repair, or is going through a lot of pages you may report the editor and request a speedy block). Anyway, all these are technicalities, I hope you will continue vandal fighting whenever you encounter it. Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has come to my attention now. Thank you for calling. Ad43 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oei... Dao höbbe v'r d'rs weer 'ns las vanne. In principe ben ik het met je eens, gezien datgeen dat men zegt. Mijn hart zegt dat ik het niet eens met je ben... Ik vindt het artikel erg vanuit een Duits/Nederlands standpunt geschreef. Limburg is (NOG) geen echt bestaand land, dus zal het Limburgs dan wel een dialect van het Nederlands zijn, of een mengeling tussen het Nederlands/Duits. Ooit gehoord van dorps"fabeltjes"? Ik oordeel niet totdat ik weet wat ze vroeger in het (nog niet echt bestaande) Nederlands of Duits zeiden. Ik zoek 't op :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, discussions on this page should preferably be held in English. Not every user here is able to read Limburgish or Dutch, although I am.

Don't be afraid to be associated with your eastern neighbours. Sentiments don't matter here. We do not dream, do not engage in politics, just are interested in the linguistic state of affairs. Ad43 (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know wikipedia :) But that article doesn't work with the NPOV-policy. I can see you wrote a few parts of it, but I have got a question. Do you speak Limburgish? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have at least a pretty good passive mastery of it. And I have a rather advanced professional background knowledge of it. I think the article generally is NPOV, as it should be. You may correct me if I'm wrong. The discussion page stands open. Ad43 (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'll read the page out and go search for more information and maybe I consider a rewriting, but for now it's good. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious and look forward to it. Ad43 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In het NL want mijn Engels is te slecht om dit daar in te zeggen: De gamma (ɣ) is volgens mij toch echt wel de harde g van het noorden. De x is de g van in chemisch en de ʝ is de zachte g dacht ik. En de g is die van het engelse good, zoals in het Limburgs zègke. (in Limburg heb je een verschil in de klank van chemisch en daag. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are:

• sound -- example -- pronunciation
• ch /x/ -- ach ("acht") -- voiceless velar fricative ("weak g")
• g /ɣ/ -- good -- voiced velar fricative
• gk /g/ -- zègke ("zeggen") -- g like in English, German or French

Ad43 (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the hard-g is? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion replaced to the discussion page of the article Limburgish, to be continued in the proper place. Ad43 (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lookin’ out, man. —Wiki Wikardo 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You better should adress that other editor, who recently removed the Dutch translation from these text samples. Still better lookin' out, man! Ad43 (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dutch dialects, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.translation-services-usa.com/dutch_dialects.shtml. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Zuid-Gelders and pasted it into South Guelderish. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Russ (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Ad43 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Because of your edits I was able to write a comprehensible paragraph, in which part of your text was restated. I hope you don't mind! Glatisant (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. consensus, consensus he :) nice job Mallerd (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or should I gather: at last you have understood the meaning of it all. You're welcome. -- Ad43 (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've switched the code. This is what ethnologue says. Classification Indo-European, Germanic, West, Low Saxon-Low Franconian. Not intelligible with Western Frisian of the Netherlands or Northern Frisian (E. Matteson SIL 1978) or Saterfriesisch (Wolbert Smidt 2001). --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, they are right, but possibly you are wrong. East Frisian is Frisian, East Frisian Low Saxon is Low Saxon.
East Frisian Low Saxon is not to be confused with the Eastern Frisian language; the latter, only spoken by about 2000 individuals in the Saterland region, is a Frisian language, not Low German.

-- Ad43 (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they put it there :) They say that 'frs' equals a Low Saxon languages. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then they too made a big mistake, at least in their classification. Ad43 (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you blanked Zandberg (North Brabant)? .:Pvt S:. 13:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really was an irrelevant contribution from any encyclopedic POV. Zandberg is no more than an average urban quarter of Breda, like many others. In its present built shape it only dates from the thirties. Before that, it did not or hardly exist as a separate hamlet. It cannot in any way be compared to old authentic villages such as Princenhage and Ginneken, with their own old history and traditions. Somebody has tried to promote this quarter only because it has given rise to the Sacrament Church Choir. S/he then better writes an article on that particular subject.

If you think this article ought not to be on Wikipedia, then the proper course would be to pursue its deletion. Blanking it doesn't do that. Please visit either the policy page on Proposed deletion or that on Articles for deletion, and follow whichever procedure you think most appropriate. .:Pvt S:. 23:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for goodness' sake, stop blanking the page. That's not how we do things. .:Pvt S:. 23:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but this seemed to be a reasonable shortcut, because of the article's utterly futile nature. It should not have escaped proper early filtering out. Please, be my guest and mark it as a non-subject on my behalf. Ad43 (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How am I a "bad loser" regarding this article? .:Pvt S:. 22:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the discussion page you seem to be very irritated by my correct arguments and try to ignore them. You way of reacting is out of control. And then, you are evidently an outsider in this matter. Fortunately, I know exactly how the local situation is. Why then would you overrule my correct edits? Ad43 (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad43 (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've claimed that there should be war on this article. When told where the weapons are, you've backed off and suggested the war ought to be fought by others. Hmm, why would I be irritated by this? .:Pvt S:. 04:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no war, only repeated unmotivated reverting for your part of well-motivated edits for mine. Only innocent harassments for your part, that keeps things going. Ad43 (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring on Breda and Zandberg (North Brabant).. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

You violated WP:3RR, and you and another user have reverted each other over essentially the same issue across a couple of articles for a couple of days. The other user has been blocked for an identical period of time. I hope that afterwards you can work out your differences. Please consider dispute resolution to assist you. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC) ~[reply]

Thank you guys for this absurd decision, as far as my always well-motivated editing is concerned. You are completely misled and dead wrong informed. Ad43 (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Breda. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elonka 05:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your additional explanation, Elonka, but in my case, this block is totally unacceptable. This is not the way qualified editors can be treated. -- Ad43 (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ad43,

as that section is of doubtful content, I suggest, that you comment on or edit it. ([1])Sarcelles (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a real mess indeed. Now it has been corrected a little, but it certainly should be done better. Ad43 (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your celan-up. Sarcelles (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ad43,

at the moment I am trying to re-write and improve this article which still had a lot of voids. I would appreciate it very much if you would have a look (no haste, of course) especially at the section "Tone" and tell if everything is correct. I have tried to add a lot of missing information. I ask you this because you have performed profound research on this subject in the past yourself. Thank you in advance and best regards! The Wiki ghost (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Wiki ghost, be my guest! -- Ad43 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Jac. van Ginneken, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages S.J. and Humboldt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 13 March 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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]