User talk:Ad43
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
[edit] Your false comments
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)
- 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) .
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)
[edit] My right comments
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Weren't you able then to see the joke of it? Ad43 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
I must agree, it was a layered joke. Good jokes are never flat. They are bold. Ad43 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I know a personal attack when I see one, stop this idiocy.Rex 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
But do you always recognise a joke when you encounter one? Ad43 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
I totally disagree. Ad43 22:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dutch Revolt
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)
- For your convenience, I've just added a reference. You're welcome. Ad43 11:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your vandalism reversions on Netherlands
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)
[edit] Limburgish
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I am curious and look forward to it. Ad43 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- And the hard-g is? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
[edit] “and Dutch”
Good lookin’ out, man. —Wiki Wikardo 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Dutch dialects
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)
[edit] Renaming pages
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)
