User talk:Torvalu4
Welcome!
[edit]
|
|
Hello! Torvalu4,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I wanted to stop by and commend your hard work with the above article; however, I also want to give you some advice. The m tag should only be used when very small edits are made, such as typo fixing, minor grammar edits, ortography, etc. For instance, these two edits were in no way minor edits: you removed a whole mess of sourced text. In addition to this, it would be nice if you would cite your sources when you replace already sourced information. Happy editing, Eisfbnore talk 12:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!
Happy editing,
J-Mo, Teahouse host, 16:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Message sent with Global message delivery.
High German consonant shift
[edit]Hi. Last month you reverted an edit of mine at High German consonant shift and challenged me to explain at talk. REALLY SORRY that I didn't see that until now. There is an explanation there now. I'll be curious to see how the others feel about this. It would be good of you can look for a citation, though. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Dutch dialects
[edit]From your edits I get the impression that you don't really know much about the subject, but you are drawing conclusions that are causing factual errors to creep into the articles. In particular, you concluded that "southern Dutch" must be the same as "Belgian Dutch" which is certainly nonsense, and it makes it seem like you really don't know anything about it. There is also a difference between "everyday dialects" and "spoken Dutch", because the latter does not say what form of Dutch is actually being spoken. Not everyone actually speaks in the local dialect, sometimes not even the majority of people speak it. I really think that if this is not a topic you have at least some expertise in, you shouldn't be editing the articles. CodeCat (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- You should read the page in its entirety. Statements in the Overview and following section break down the distinction as not necessarily northern vs. southern but Netherlands vs. Belgian. Also, the original text in the "South Dutch" section originally read "South Dutch (Flemish)", so if I was mislead, it was because the page's contents said something different. Which is why I strongly suggest you edit the other sections that talk about "Belgian" Dutch for the sake of consistency. A citation specifically localizing the 3-way use of gender would be helpful.
- As for the dialect bit, "everyday dialects" is a phrasing error. You should just say "southern Dutch dialects", unless you were thinking of "everyday speech" (i.e. informal register), which is not necessarily dialectal. If you don't mean "speech", then you're including written Dutch, which is obviously in the standard. Also, the examples appear to be in otherwise standard Dutch save for the possessives. So, there's a bit of a contradiction. "local dialects" now limits your meaning to strictly nonstandard, regional speech - possibly worse considering the examples (which imply rather the 3-way split occurs in informal, non-dialectal speech). The best thing would be to remove any mention of dialects altogether. Also, I'm curious, does (or did) the 3-way split occur in the Belgian standard? Torvalu4 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is no Belgian standard. Belgium follows the same standard written form as the Netherlands. What is different in the spoken forms of Belgium with respect to southern Netherlands Dutch is that the latter have a much stronger Hollandic influence and are therefore closer to Standard Dutch (which is based primarily on Hollandic). The Belgian forms have more French influence, especially the further south you go. But that's the result of the national border dividing them and so the phenomenon is only a century old or so. 150 years ago there was no significant language border, there were only Brabantian dialects that formed a dialect continuum. Furthermore, there are many differences among individual people too: some people still speak the original dialect more or less (i.e. Brabantian) while others speak mostly standard/Hollandic with Brabantian mixed in. What characterises Belgium in this respect is that the original dialect survives much more strongly than it does in the Netherlands.
- The three-gender split is the result of a phenomenon called "accusativism" which emerged in late Middle Dutch in the southern dialects. Speakers began to use the accusative case in place of the nominative. This case had three clearly different endings for the genders, while the nominative had identical forms for the masculine and feminine. When the case system collapsed a few centuries later, the accusative case was the only surviving case among speakers with accusativism, while the nominative survived elsewhere. The dialects with accusativism were able to maintain the three genders because the articles still allowed them to be distinguished, while that was not possible in the remaining dialects. So to pinpoint which areas have three genders you need to find out which dialects have accusativism, and those dialects are the ones south of the Meuse, i.e. Brabantian (and probably Flemish and Limburgish too, which were influenced by it).
- Speakers whose dialect has 3 genders will also use this when writing standard Dutch, or when speaking a standardised/Hollandicised form of Dutch in formal/public settings (like on radio or TV). So in this sense, the split occurs in formal Dutch as well, but its basis lies in the "underlying" dialect that the speaker is accustomed to. Speakers in (mostly) Dutch Brabant that have switched to a form of Hollandic with Brabantian mixed in will tend to abandon the accusativistic/3-gender article system as well, and so these speakers will have the two-gender system of common-neuter. I myself am one of those speakers too; I don't have any innate feel for the 3-gender system, which a speaker who was raised in the traditional dialect would have. CodeCat (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- That was informative, but there are a couple of problems. First, you imply you don't actually know which dialects for sure, Brabantian extends north well beyond the Meuse (so do you really mean the 2 Belgian Brabantian dialects?), and if the split occurs in formal Dutch then, despite the underlying source, it is a linguistic fact that the split is not dialectal. So, you should just say "southern Dutch". Also, you haven't really said anything that doesn't confine the phenomenon to Belgium... I'm getting the feeling that "south of the Meuse" is a euphemism for the Belgian border. So, I can't help but continue to wonder if your edit was ever justified. Finally, I'm a little worried about how the word "dialect" is being used; I have a strong feeling you're referring to 2 things: dialect in the English sense, and Dialekt/dialecte in the continental sense. Torvalu4 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you good sir!
[edit]
|
Hello there! I noticed you've been making some good edits to legal pages and I just wanted to say thank you. I tweaked your edit on the medieval history of torts, which is a page I've done a fair bit of work on, but you added some good information. Thanks again and let me know if you want any tips or need some help. I've been around for a few years and I know it can get heated and stressful around here. II | (t - c) 20:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks. I'm not used to appreciation or praise on this site, so I'll take it with a grain of salt. So far so good with regard to edit wars. Torvalu4 (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources
[edit]Hi, though I know your intentions were good when you made these edits [1][2], they are not reliably sourced. Since I've reverted your edits, I think you deserve an explanation: Any type of user-contributed site, whether it is Wikia, IMDb, TVTropes, TV.com, or even Wikipedia itself, cannot be used as a reliable source, as there is no clear editorial oversight for any of these sites, or any presumption that facts are being checked. Since any yahoo can add to these sites, we don't accept them. Instead we should use sources with clear editorial oversight: books, newspapers, journals, magazines, major news websites, trade websites, specialty websites like thefutoncritic.com that have a reputation among Wikipedia editors for accuracy. Hope that helps. I urge you to please read WP:RS which explains this in much greater detail, and also covers important concepts like the difference between primary and secondary sources, and what Wikipedia's preferences are. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me to the RS help page. In addition, I've found a discussion forum post, which is generally "not reliable" according to Wikipedia, but it's by a "Gargoyles" co-producer who worked with Pacific Anim. Co. before its acquisition and then with DAJ after. I don't see how this couldn't be reliable. Torvalu4 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Edit summaries, please
[edit]Hello Torvalu4, and thanks for your contributions. Please consider providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand the intention of your edit and to collaborate with you on the encyclopedia. Thanks in advance for considering this suggestion. Eric talk 02:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Torvalu4. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
October 2017
[edit]
Hello, I'm Jc3s5h. Your recent edit to the page Notary appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've restored it, mainly because you shouldn't be reverting; instead, you need to be making edits. Torvalu4 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Torvalu4. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Torvalu4. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For your precious edits in articles relating to languages. Thank you for your work. Borsoka (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC) |
Copyright problem on Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968)
[edit]Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reagan-vs-patco-the-strike-that-busted-unions.html, which is not released under a compatible license. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019
[edit]
Your addition to Pre-Hilalian Arabic dialects has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning. The first time was an accident, but this was just a test to see how closely I was being monitored and how quick the response would be. I take it I've been flagged for extra scrutiny. Torvalu4 (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)