User talk:HP1740-B

HP1740-B (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Truth

First of all, I was not beligerant on your page at all so i do NOT understand why you insist on being beligerant on mine. I do not see YOU citing jack shit in the way of sources, at least i have. Did you even LOOK at the maps? There is significant overlap between the Dutch and DE-1, that is northern Germans. Yiddisch is a standardized variety of Low German, of course it is closer than Dutch. Dutch is the closest LANGUAGE, (Not damned dialect!) to German. West and Central European are political terms that hold no water in anthropological debate. Dutch and Germans are both Germanic peoples, how in God's name can you possible deny this? Do you have any proof what so ever to support you irrational claims of Dutch being non-Germanic, or are you just talking out your ass? Kurwa. Prusak (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course the Dutch are close to Norwegians and English too, they are also both Germanic Peoples....

Dutch People

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/geneticmapofeurope.jpg http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html

THIS is how I can claim the dutch are releated to Germans and other Germanic peoples. PLus the Language, culture, etc are very similar, hell they even have a common history of being under the Holy Roman Empire. The Low Saxon dialect of German is closer to Dutch in some aspects than to Higher German dialects, like Markisch. See Here: http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/languages/similarities/german/index.html Dutch language is the closest living relative to German.

Prusak (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Also you tell me to read talk page, but it only reinforces MY position of the Dutch and Germans being related. Besides how can you deny that Germanic peoples are related? That is like saying Russians and Ukrainians are not related...it is absurd. Prusak (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Could you point me to some of your literature on the topic of Dutch ethnicity? Iblardi (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the books on specifically Dutch ethnicity are nationalist 19th/early 20th century works, from before the advent of genetic studies. Most literature with good information on the Dutch etnicity can be found in general ethnic books like those by Eysenck and Smith. Or culture books, like those by Vossestein. Also many of the best books on Dutch history touch and explain the subject.HP1740-B (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe these could be used as sources for the article. How do they define Dutch ethnicity? Iblardi (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's too complicated to write down in a few seconds. I will get back on this to you later this week.HP1740-B (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New intro

I think the new introduction you came up with is a real improvement in comparison with the previous one, much more balanced and much better stylistically. Not a bad job at all. Iblardi (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

German

It's a bit POV provocative to keep mentioning German. We know without question what the SS's cause was. SS is far less weasily than German as an adjective, since it refers directly to the organisation. WilliamH (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation of Nederlands to Lowlands

Hi I saw your edit, and tend to disagree. I have given two issues why I think Netherlands is a better translation than Lowlands, and why I think Lallans is irrelevant. Can you please comment on those on the new section on the Talk:Dutch language page, so we can find a mutually acceptable solution instead of engaging in a revert war. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your discussion/debate w/ Arnoutf and Iblardi in the Dutch language article is insightful, and for me, a rallying point. The ambiguity that exists in any discussion/article/statement referring to the terms "Dutch" or "Netherlands" is inevitable. I think the point is to make the reader/researcher/visitor aware that any use of the words "Dutch" or "Netherlands" may require, perhaps almost demands, an awareness of that ambiguity. It points to the discrepancies that come about when using Dutch/Netherlands/Low Countries/Flemish (anyone of those words and more) as though they were clear and precise, and interchangable. They are not...even to those that have some perception of their use in context. I view the debate(s) here and on other pages with deep interest, but more than a little trepidation. I am aware that my vantage point alters my view but perhaps it also provides a unique perspective. I will continue to watch and learn. Thanks for your insights.--Buster7 (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"gouda reference was not a reference"

Hello, could you clarify what you mean exactly with your words "gouda reference was not a reference" in this summary? Thanks. Iblardi (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It was positioned behind a statement it did not validate/back up.HP1740-B (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dutch (Etnic Group)

85.146.24.65 has undone your removal of the famous Dutchmen gallery. Also, how and to who do I report this anonomous and abusive editor. His racist and vulgar edits on other Belgian/Netherlandic articles and discussions are not appropriate. Not censorship but a censure is in order.--Buster7 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While there maybe arguments in favour of removing the gallery from this page, there is a lengthy discussion on the gallery in the talk page. So I think you really need to discuss removal on the talk page before doing it. Arnoutf (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your tone of voice in the talk page of Dutch ethnic group is way out of line. Using words as "Rape" is simply not acceptable in any civilized discussion under any circumstance. I would stongly suggest you remove that whole section, as this will only reflect badly on your potential to cooperate as an editor. Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess your latest comment on the D-EG talk page was directed to the anon 85.146.24.65 not me. Could you please clarify (e.g. by adding "@85.146.24.65:" before your comment as the indent seems to imply you are answering me; and I do agree with you that nationalism should not be relevant. Arnoutf (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out user pages of Arnoutf and Iblardi. My Nederlanse reading is not to good but I think a Pietervhuis plot is brewing. The page that SPQRobin suggested is great (for me). It explains much and confirms my suspisions. It clearly stated what I knew was happening...and not just by Pieter. Hope you don't mind my sharing my thoughts and discoveries.--Buster7 (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

editing D-EG, with care

In Ethnogenisis section, the last sentence of the first paragraph is a run-on. I suggest a period at Franks, the removal of "and", and a new sentence beginning with "most'. Also, a comma should go after "although" and after "Netherlands". There are other little situations throughout but I want to be methodical and respectful of your effort. Should I happen to make a correction that is disjointed or based on my misunderstanding, don't hesitate to let me know. I won't edit any more at DEG till I hear from you.--Buster7 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In Golden Era section...What is meant by "The eventually ended is a stalemate"...I can guess, but I'm not sure.--Buster7 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the following worthy of inclusion??...It involves a Masonry process (brick walls, sidewalks, driveways, tilework, etc)...Flemish bond, also known as Dutch bond, has historically always been considered the most decorative bond, and for this reason was used extensively for dwellings until the adoption of the cavity wall. It is created by alternately laying headers and stretchers in a single course. The next course is laid so that a header lies in the middle of the stretcher in the course below. Again, this bond is one brick thick. Also, How about a mention of cobblestone. I'm not sure but I believe the use of cobblestones originated in the Low Countries. I will investigate.--Buster7 (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be integrated, as for cobblestones, a feature doesn't have to be invented by the Dutch, merely used traditionally.HP1740-B (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Again...in ethnogenesis. The third sentence is very infomative but quite long and potentially confusing. If you don't mind, I will edit it. Soon.--Buster7 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Done...--Buster7 (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also...in ethnogenisis. The ending of the last sentance "seems" to require a "clarifying word" ie..."but WAS also identified as such."..or..."but also identified ITSELF as such."--Buster7 (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)... I chose "itself...--Buster7 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence of "minority languages" seems to state the opposite of what it should. Am I misreading it? With all this back and forth "is it a language?" talk, I wanna be sure b4 editing.--Buster7 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It confuses me too, I attempt to clarify.HP1740-B (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Afrikaner

Your recent changes to this article are correct. I am an Afrikaner, we do have French blood (an Afrikaner is a mixture of all of Europe). My family's surnames in the last 3 generations combined give me 8 bloodlines from various countries. Open up a South-African telephone directory and you will see how many French surnames we have. My surname is from Denmark (private). My mother's side is from Germany (jansen van Rensburg). My grandmother from Ireland (Peacock). Great grandmother is (van der Merwe) which is believe is French.

Huguenots are from France, we are descended from them. So we have French ancestors.

We do also call ourselves the white tribe of Africa. We are Africans (been here for 400 years) and even if the current government of South-Africa or the so called "natives" which invaded RSA just before the West colonised it do not think so, we are African. This is off-topic but we are also African refugees also (which some call ourselves) most people leaving the country cite the threat of violence as the reason for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsuacner (talk • contribs) 09:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Dutch herring stand.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Dutch herring stand.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Dutch street scene with Dutch organ.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Dutch street scene with Dutch organ.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Dutch family.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Dutch family.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Dutch talking on the street.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Dutch talking on the street.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Interactive map

Sorry, but if the image does not work on FireFox 3 (the newest version) it is no good. What is not standard on my browser compared to the more than 20 million other users of this browser. Your image does not work, and you will have to fix that. By the way, I checked the map, and on that page it does work just fine, only when embedded in the D-E-Group article it does not work. I don't know why. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok so my screen is apparently abnormal (many laptops do have widescreen you know) how do I fix it? Arnoutf (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am learning alot from your boldness, It has helped with other articles and talks. Thank You. ...--Buster7 (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I might have fixed it in the structure not sure though. Short term solution would be to simply change the screen ratio in the monitor sectionHP1740-B (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I am not sure monitor settings would help, my screen physically has wide-screen pixels... Anyway, flushing the previous paragraphs solves it. {{-}} Arnoutf (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Flemings rewrite....Great!--Buster7 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulls and other animals

Hi HP1740-B. I noticed you opened an edit summary with "Bull" - in my mind this means - "the previous edit is nonsense" - but in a sightly ruder way. I think that is not a very helpful style of communication (even in summaries) and may even be breach of WP:CIVIL. Notice that "normal" Dutch directness is considered not only rude, but frequently offensive in discourse in English. So my advice would be to be careful with such wording, even if you think them. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pannekoeken

OMG...This part of the article was once a TASTE sensation. No herring in white sauce? No smatballen? Don't tell me that "frieten en mousellen" is next!!!! Just kidding, of course. Have a good day.--Buster7 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Flemish (linguistics)

Is there more to come? I certainly hope so.--Buster7 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly there is ... when I started I had no idea of the 'mess' articles like this have created all over Wikipedia, the problem is much bigger than I had previously thought.HP1740-B (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Flemish (linguistics) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Húsönd 18:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. Explain your actions

You have transformed an extensive, long established article into a redirect without discussion. Article blanking, actually. That is to be promptly reverted. If you believe that the content should be somewhere else, please discuss your position on the talk page. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, on Wikipedia we strongly frown upon edit summaries like this one of yours. Please observe WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Húsönd 18:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't be surprised if you find yourself blocked then. WP:CIVIL cannot be overrun. Húsönd 18:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see anybody calling you a vandal. But even if someone did, their transgressions of WP:CIVIL are not an excuse for you to follow suit. Húsönd 18:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I know well how to pay attention to incivility, with regard or not to its cause, thank you. Húsönd 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial edit on Flemings

If you see that an edit is not supported by other Wikipedians, the best practice is to be patient, keep the article in its previous consensus version in the meantime (this prevents unnecessary edit wars), discuss the proposed changes, and hear the opinions of other Wikipedians. There is no rush. Sijo Ripa (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

--Buster7 (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)== Flemish (linguistics) ==

I don't know a whole lot of Dutch linguistics to tell the truth, but I read through that article and did a little quick research, just glancing at some other things, and the edit before yours seemed better written, so I undid yours, because it just deleted most of the things and added a few. There wasn't anything wrong with what you added, but I think the last version was better for the Wikipedian community. :) --Robbie (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to know everything on a topic to see that it is better written, has more information, and isn't inaccurate. --Robbie (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, there was nothing wrong with what you added, but there was nothing wrong with what you took away either. --Robbie (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't take an expert to see that they weren't inaccurate. I don't understand what your comment means. I have knowledge on the topic, what you added was good, what you took away was good. You don't need to take away good information to make room for more good information. There was nothing wrong with the previous writing style. There was nothing wrong with the information. There was nothing wrong with any of it. It was a good article and you deleted most of it, to add the little bit of information that you thought was good. Don't get me wrong, your information was good, but it didn't have as much information as the last version. Arguing with me is NOT getting you anywhere. Robbie (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know a whole lot of Dutch linguistics to tell the truth, but I read through that article and did a little quick research, just glancing at some other things, and the edit before yours seemed better written, so I undid yours, because it just deleted most of the things and added a few. There wasn't anything wrong with what you added, but I think the last version was better for the Wikipedian community. :) --Robbie (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say anywhere that your version was not good, I said the provious version was better. I blanked my talk page because I don't want it to get cluttered, so I archived it. I still have it all saved. I never said that your version had inaccurate information, but the previous version that you deleted most of was better than yours. It does not take an expert to see that what you did was controversial. Also, yes, I'm willing to drop this and move on if you are.

I said that about the previous version. The previous version was not inaccurate. Your version was not inaccurate. I understand my quote, you've refered to it a dozen times. Maybe it is something you can't understand unless you are a native speaker of english, no offence to people who aren't. I was not talking about your version when I said that you don't have to be an expert to see that it is accurate, I was talking about the previous version. The information you deleted was accurate. Robbie (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hp...dont fall into this web...it takes alot of energy to get out...lol...--Buster7 (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Buster7 has smiled at you! Thanks for your recent post on my talk. It's in reaching out that we can achieve success...diplomatically. Your competence as an editor is without question.--Buster7 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Percentages

There may be millions of people involved , but they are still SMALL, MEAGER, and INCONSIDERABLE when compared to the population of the listed countries which is what the sentence states. Less than 3.5 percent is NOT considerable. When a beer glass has 3.5% of the original volume, the bartender removes it, assuming (correctly) that you are finished. Or he may ask if you want a re-fill. He certainly will not think to himself...."O HP has considerable Stella left in his glass". Considerable is unexceptable. Marginal is a clearer description of the numbers, Let's not start one more parcel of edit-warring.--Buster7 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How about....NoteWorthy... (worthy of notice) positive yet not too. Leaves it to the readers own research. If you agree just change--Buster7 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact numbers/percentage but if you wanted to say somewhere in the article that Dutch language forms a CONSIDERABLE portion of American English vocabulary from sources other than England, that use of considerable i would agree with...Just a guess but it may be as high as 40%--Buster7 (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dutch - Flemish

Hi,
Are you sure VB promotes Dutch and not Flemish culture ? Per my understanding, Flemish make the distinction between both. Eg, I think there is no particular link between The Netherlands and Flanders except the language... But I may be wrong... Thx Ceedjee (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In Flanders/Belgium "Fleming/Flemish" has been used for a variety of matters since the 1980s; most of them relating to either the Dutch language, culture or institutions of the Flemish region or community and the population of the aforementioned two. For example until the 1980s the Flemish community was known as the Dutch community, and Dutch cultural community. There are very strong cultural links between the Netherlands and Flanders. VB, though definitely focused on the Flemish nation, acknowledges this; as do many if not all Flemish political parties.HP1740-B (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.

When I see only 2 google hits for dutch community of Belgium and given Vlaams in Vlaams Belang means Flemish, I think nevertheless that you should find several wp:rs sources to replace Flemish by Dutch. True or wrong, I fear this could be considered as a wp:or... What are the cultural links between Flemings (BE) and Dutch (NL) ? I am not aware of any particular collaboration or common festivities. Is not the langage even slightly different ?

I know eg that in Wallonia, festivites are organised in several cities for 14 July (France national day)...
Ceedjee (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I was not aware of all these links and organisations.

It seems clear from the examples you give the links are tigh.

That sounds good.

I have another question for my personal culture (if you don't mind) : does VB asks for a "separation" of Flanders from Belgium to establish an independent state or does it expect at term to create some sort of cultural federation with all Dutch (eg mainly the Netherlands)

What is the issue ? Nationalist ? Cultural ? Economical ? Ethnical ? Ceedjee (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is mainly economic and cultural. Basically, Belgium is a multilingual state; but its inhabitants generally aren't. Wallonia (French) is a poor region, while Flanders (Dutch) is rich(er); a lot of Flanders' money goes to Wallonia; to help it become more viable, but to no real notable effect. VB wants the dissolution of Belgium and an independent Flanders; and see that as their main objective. Many are pro unionizing/reunification with the Netherlands.HP1740-B (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

re-unification...

Belgium is a funny country. Flemings and Walloons want to separate but as soon as the independence comes near, they talk about unification with their great brother. :-)

If it was just a request for a fair share of the money and revenues, I don't think Brussels, the Municipalities with language facilities and BHV would make some much troubles. There is also a big nationalist claim with it.

The way you introduce this : VB would just be liberal. It seems also to be highly nationalist and some of his leaders have a past in the far-right. I know tt is not good to be a Jew at Antwerpen, or Arab en even Muslim.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Germanic languages

All languages that do not have a separate ISO 639-2 code, can use a code called "others". Languages of Germanic family use "gem". I'd like to know why you remove it from the Flemish article? Thanks! --✉ Hello World! 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Language family in Flemish

Hi,

I noticed you have reverted several times the language family tree in Flemish, replacing "Indo-European > Germanic > West Germanic > Low Franconian > Dutch" with "Dutch > Belgian Dutch/Flemish". I don't understand why. If, as you write, Belgian Dutch/Flemish is a sub of Dutch, why do you insist on removing "Indo-European > Germanic > West Germanic > Low Franconian > ", of which Dutch is a sub ?

Thanks. --Luxem (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I do that because what's concerned here is a form of pronunciation and a sociolect, they are not "region bound" forms which "developed traditionally" so they shouldn't be classified that way, ( I wouldn't even classify them at all come to think of it).HP1740-B (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important knowledge for the Wikipedia user to know that Flemish/Belgian Dutch (whichever definition you would want to use) is/are a sub of Dutch, and that Dutch is a sub of Low Franconian, etc.

Whether "Belgian Dutch/Flemish" is used to describe "Dutch as spoken in Belgium", "East and West Flemish" or "tussentaal", they all are subs of Dutch. And if they are, I don't see why we would omit the remainder of the language tree. --Luxem (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

West Flemish has a tree, as it is a natural dialect. Neither Belgian Dutch nor tussentaal are natural forms. They don't get 'trees'.HP1740-B (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that a Wikipedia guideline ? Where can I find it ? --Luxem (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing another user's signature in a talk page discussion

What is this [1] supposed to mean? Iblardi (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How should I know? Probably a miss-click. If you're offended by it, please do change it.HP1740-B (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Curious. Clicking my mouse button doesn't normally result in other user's signatures being changed into mine. How does that come about? Iblardi (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I apparently had your name under copy/paste. The most important question isn't how I did it, but why I would do it consciously. HP1740-B (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't deliberate, then I'm not offended. Just be a little more careful, OK? Iblardi (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

Please do not use misleading edit summaries, like you did here[2]. Removing sourced info while adding something else is not the best way to edit. Fram (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

We are both reverting a lot on this article. I will stop for now, and I urge you to do the same if you don't want to breach WP:3RR. Fram (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility in edit summaries: warning

This [3] is incivil. Don't revert good faith edits as vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[4] made on December 16 2008 to Dutch people

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

commentaar

Ik ben bereid met je samen te werken aan het artikel over Nederlanders, maar vraag ook medewerking. Ik merk dat we het op veel punten met elkaar eens zijn, vaker dan andersom, dus je kunt hier zelf ook van profiteren.

Iets waar ik het niet met je eens bent is de foto die je gebruikt voor de infobox. Ik heb al vaker gezegd ben dat ik het niet eens ben met de keuze ervan, en het is niet waar dat er een meerderheidsbesluit is geweest. Ook merkte ik dat je zelf de foto ook niet ideaal vind, want je probeerde ook enkele keren een andere foto te gebruiken (iets met tulpen kan ik herinneren). Ik merk dat je de foto vooral wilt omdat je tegen de toevoeging van een collage bent. Zelf hoef ik ook geen collage, alhoewel ik de eerste zelf had gemaakt. We kunnen een alternatief zoeken, maakt niet uit wat, zoals een oud schilderij of iets dat Nederlanders goed kan symboliseren.

Ook ben ik benieuwd naar commentaar op de afkomst van Nederlanders, namelijk de invloed van de Friezen en Saksen op het Frankische volk enzovoort. Laten we vaker zaken discussieren inplaats van ergens over te stoeien, goed? Grey Fox (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Biased maps

See my proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Disputed_maps_templates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

Let me begin saying that I do truly believe that you are editing with the aim to improve Wikipedia. I never doubted that your motives are good, and you are editing in a way you think will improve the project.

Nevertheless I know we sometimes come to blows when editing. Part of that maybe my fault by responding sometimes rather fierce on edits, edit summaries and talk page comments I have problems with. Part of it maybe because we have a very different style of editing (agreed, I talk more) where I am more in favour of small step improvement, while you take on massive restructuring. I think both approaches are needed from time to time (although I think you go to easily for the massive restructure, but I am sure you think I am sitting too long micro-editing existing texts).

I would propose to try to respect each others sensitivities. I will try to respond less agressively on your edits, and I hope you will try to consider your summaries and responses; and respect my (somewhat talkative) editing approach. I am convinced by doing it that way, editing will be much more pleasant and productive for us both and the project as a whole.

In this strain I would like to thank you for the very constructive approach in which you have initiated the structure to create the stroyline for the ethnogenesis of the Dutch on your personal space. I hope we can all collaborate there to get a mutually agreed, best possible history section in the Dutch people article.

Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.HP1740-B (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG

Hi. FYI: see here. Regards, Wutsje (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

German 1910 Language Map

Hi, there is some debate over a map that you made indicating german-speaking regions in eastern and central europe, and some feel it is inappropriate for the article. I think we are in need of the original source. I myself feel that it is accurate, but without you weighing in on the situation or providing sources, I regret to say that they are probably right. The map was used at Expulsion of Germans after World War II and, although no longer visible there, is visible here: [5] --Npovshark (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is this discussion taking place?HP1740-B (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

don't bite the newbies please

Please read WP:BITE and consider how to treat and how you do treat User:Prusak (who first started editing end of May 2009). Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect people to have been taught some manners by their parents before they even know what Wikipedia is. Going around and insulting people in Polish or I don't care what other language has got nothing to do with being new to Wikipedia, it's got to do with common decency and as such I have every right to point that out to him/her.HP1740-B (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Project References

If you go on to Joshua Project and compare their figures with other Website's figures, they will be very similar, if not the same (I compared them to check the accuracy). This is about the only place I can find figures on how many Dutch people live in Indonesia after going through about the first 20 Pages of search results when I punched it into Google. As for Sri Lanka's Populations of Dutch people, Joshua Projects figures are about 5,000 people off what many other Websites are saying. I've also done the same thing with many other Ethnic Groups before, I've compared many other sources figures to what Joshua Projects says and they are all very similar and comparable. I know this is merely a Wikipedia link, but it is some proof that it is a reliable source: Indo people- This article puts the amount of Dutch people in Indonesia at approximately 12,000, 2,000 off Joshua Projects' population of 14,000. Burgher people- This article puts the amount of Dutch people in Sri Lanka at approximately 40,000, 5,000 - 6,000 off Joshua Projects' population of 34,000. Plus, how can you confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billsta1 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC) --Billsta1 (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but you have to understand that we have had Joshua Project references before, and their statistics are unreliable because this site isn't of an organization studying ethnic groups (or containing data of those that do) but is a "research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups of the world with the least followers of Jesus Christ". They're missionaries.HP1740-B (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, but Joshua Project recieves most of their information from other sources, i.e Websites and Books. --Billsta1 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we'll need to know exactly which of those books claims the figures you plan on using.HP1740-B (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want a full listing of their References (Which are primarily Missionaries but some not), then here you go: [6] --Billsta1 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I take from this that there is no real way to know the source of the information?HP1740-B (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? Even censuses aren't the most reliable source of information (Since censuses focus primarily on population figures and statistics and not just ethnic groups), since the information is often outdated and the accuracy is doubtful. So are you saying, in order to obtain the correct number, I need to get information from a Website that solely studies ethnic groups? Many other articles concerning certain ethnic groups don't (And, trust me, I've read nearly every article concerning particular ethnic groups on Wikipedia); and please don't think that doesn't apply to the article on 'Dutch people'. I put it as an estimate in most of my edits, so why aren't you still satisfied over this? --Billsta1 (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you need information which has a clear source, and that if the Joshua project can't provide those, then it shouldn't be used. For more information on why this source is not reliable I suggest you talk you User:Arnoutf. If I remember correctly he's the one that handled them last time they were added.HP1740-B (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why do people use Census counts, the CIA World Factbook and news articles here on Wikipedia in articles relating to certain Ethnic Groups when even they are not information that has a 'clear source' and are not websites that primarily focus on the study of Ethnic Groups? Again, I put those figures as an estimate in many of my previous edits on that page. Why are you still upset by this? --Billsta1 (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not upset at all, and let me again stress you don't have to have websites that focus only on ethnic groups, you just need to know 'exactly' where your stuff comes from.HP1740-B (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but I've checked and one of their references is a Website that is similar but does not 'have a mission'. By this, I mean that it is an organisation on unreached peoples, but it does not seek to highlight the unreached people groups of the world. It primarily seeks to provide information and figures regarding people groups (Particularly unreached people groups), rather than identify who/what/how many people groups are unreached. If I remember correctly, it is called 'People Groups'. They almost always use statistics and figures from sources that focus on statistical and population issues, but they gather this information in conjunction with their information on unreached people groups (Which, however, does not affect the figures/statistics/numbers of a particular group in a particular country). There is also a book titled 'Ethnologue' cited in their (Joshua Projects) references that focuses on just languages and which-ethnic-groups-speak-what-in-what-country (I'm sorry, I don't know another way to put that!) --Billsta1 (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To Essaregee

You are the one, together with Prusak, to claim that today (in the 21st century) there is such a thing as 'Germanic peoples'. According to you, these people form a group, know they are a group and act like a group. By your definition a Dutchman is going to find more similarities between himself and an Icelander than with a Frenchman. My only responds to this is, and has been, that if you claim such things, then you also need to prove them. Not by dumping whole pages of text, which you yourself made up, on my talk page; but by finding and referring to sources. Until that moment, you are wrong.HP1740-B (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding: Please stop flooding my talk page with any more makeshift maps without sources and further personal rantings lacking any foundation. The only thing you've proven thus far is that Dutch is a Germanic language... which was never disputed.HP1740-B (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

At the risk of sounding arrogant (no intention to do so).... Your recent edits and talk page comments take much better account of justified and obective opposite views of other editors compared to those of about a year ago (you're still a bit blunt in international context, but then again I only started to learn not to be very bluntly Dutch having an English boss for 8 yrs ;-). In all your new more cooperative style is highly appreciated and makes your contributions more easily integrated into existing articles (Blast, now I am sounding arrogant anyway ;-). Anyway, keep up this style and I am looking forward to working with you in the future. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, HP1740-B, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --86.29.138.63 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)

Most Western Europeans are a single race/Haplogroup! The R1b Haplogroup unites the U.K., Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, the Basque Country, the Bashkirs and 'Western European descended' parts of Ohio.--86.29.138.63 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Scandinavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Sardinia are united by group I!--86.29.139.1 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

HP1740-B, please don't mark edits as "minor" when they add, alter or remove content. Minor change should mainly or only be used for layout, typo's, ... This, this, this and this are all not minor edits.

I have also commented on sourcing at Talk:Dutch people. Fram (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You replied on my talk page with "Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith (something about 'practice what you preach') and for the rest; ga boeven vangen.". I don't see how your reply is relevant to my message. I was not assuming bad faith, I have not commented on motives, reasons, ..., just indicated which edits I believed were not minor. The only edits of mine that are marked minor are either typo corrections and the like, or admin-related edits which are automatically (not by me) marked as minor, e.g. reverts and protection changes. And please stick to English when commenting on the English Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Arcen en Velden

Not only is your edit summary very uncivil ("Because it is nowhere to be found in the source. Had you checked it before you blindly reverted my edits out of some sad personal grudge unworthy of an admin you'd had know this.)", it is also incorrect. Follow the link to the community homepage[7], click on "Welkom", click on "Arcen en Velden" (upper left), click on "Gesqchiedenis" (body of text, second line), and there you are. Because of the frames used in the website, the actual page can't be linked directly. That doesn't mean that the info isn't available there. Fram (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what's incivil? Watching someones edits; provoking conflict as soon as you get the chance. That's 'incivil', not to mention sad. Or did you happen to wonder onto that particular page, and felt some information was missing. It's not going to help you, now this matter is personal. The information will remain deleted because.

• A source should be directly accesible to the reader, they shouldn't have to go search for pages and pages.
• The site in question provides no sources on it's claims and the overal style is that of a civil clerk, not a historian.
• The article's text is a complete translation of the information found on that website, and hence a copy right violation.

HP1740-B (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The only argument with some merit is your final one (copyvio), so I'll rewrite the info. The rest is not relevant. I watch your edits because the number of errors in it is much higher than with most other editors. Be more careful and correct in your edits, and you'll not see me reverting you anymore, it's as simple as that.(talk)

Not relevant says you, WP:SOURCE says something different. Which is not surprising since your 'adminship' has been marked with more errors, abuse of power, threats and misquotations of Wikipedia policy than most others. Rewrite all you want, unless a truly reliable source is added, I will delete it. For you, till kingdom come. HP1740-B (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Fram (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. To most minds 4 and 5 are self evident here. Go on fram, do your best. You've gone too on this one. HP1740-B (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You doubt that that website is actually the official municiaplity website? Because, well, that's what #4 is about... Fram (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Less talking here, more sources there.HP1740-B (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I've started a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts about your incivil comments and personal attacks here. Fram (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR

I have filed a case against you for a 3RR violation at Dutch people. You can find it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Fram (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of thirty hours for edit-warring on Dutch people with completely unproductive tone. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 14:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dutch Civil Wars

Template:Dutch Civil Wars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 02:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Dutchstatues.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dutchstatues.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Folkloregroep.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Folkloregroep.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:Dutch collage.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Dutch collage.png.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 02:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Comparison of English, Dutch and German sentence.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Comparison of English, Dutch and German sentence.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

History of urban centres in the Low Countries

Good afternoon. I really appreciate the article and while I'm no expert on the topic, it not only sounds reasonable but also aligns with I have read elsewhere. I just wanted to ask if you could please provide its references, as to be able to further read on the topic. Best wishes Mmasalleras (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)