User talk:Joost 99

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Joost 99, 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:

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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declarations of independence[edit]

Hey Joost 99. I edited your edits becuase: while most of the territory is the modern Argentina, the declaration of independence of United Provinces of South America included more countries than just Argentina, this countries are Uruguay, Malvinas, parts of Paraguay and Bolivia (and Chile).

Similar case with Northern America, which includes whole modern México, U.S. southwest (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, parts of Colorado and Wyoming). The Spaniard "Northern America" also included Florida, which remained as a Spaniard posesion after the Mexican independence in 1821.

The Central American nations declared their independece the same day as modern Mexico did, but 4 months later, Central America joined to the First Mexican Empire in 1822.

There is an Act of Independence of the Mexican Empire, but is not translated yet, however you can find it in Spanish here es:Acta de Independencia del Imperio Mexicano. Cheers, JC 10:30, 9 March 2008 (PST)

List of newspapers[edit]

Hi. You are wasting my time, just as much as yours, by trying to make a point in an ephimeral article on Dutch history. If you believe, I am allowing myself to be drawn into a lengthy historical debate about counting socks on the year of Dutch independence, you are completely mistaken. Peace of Westphalia says that "The independence of the Netherlands...was formally recognized". That's enough for the purposes of this list. Period. We are not going to count here the ratio of Dutch cities occupied by Spanish and Geuzen forces, or to what subjective political degree the Netherlands were independent before. Why? Because this is utterly beyond the scope of the list which is the reason why I prefer to go by a the latest, but most definite date. Go elsewhere if you feel an insatiable thirst for enforcing debates on Dutch history on neutral editors. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Pleaes do not question my neutrality, when I make an honest change conform general consensus within Wikipedia.

2) I do not waste peoples time. If I see something wrong, I change it and give good arguments.

3) History in Europe in that period is far from straightforward. One sentence from one article does not rule out every other option, as you obviously think it does. The Dutch Republic gained its indepence first and foremost from the Spanish Empire. Amsterdam in 1618 is by general consensus not referred to as part of the Holy Roman Empire, but as the Dutch Republic.

If you think the country column will generate the wrong message, improve the article with extra information.Joost 99 (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks[edit]

Can you help me find a reliable source then please??TheFutureGood (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered on your talk page. Joost 99 (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of the earliest newspapers[edit]

Hello. The issue is really a minor one, but to honest the way you self-declare your view as the only legitimate and objective one does not sit too well with me. And that you are not willingly to compromise even though I already moved - for the sake of compromise - 75% in your direction some may think does not shed a particularly favourable light on how you interpret WP as a collective effort. Anyway, I am mostly concerned with the history of technology and printing here, much less with political history, so I renew my offer for the entry "Dutch Republic (HREGN). If you still disagree, I feel obliged to make the reader profit from the time and energy which I may then invest in my research on the legal status of the Netherlands then, namely by adding it systematically to a number of other articles on Dutch history. However, I would like to spare myself the effort, since my focus lies elsewhere, but it really depends on you now. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored five (!!) different users advice and views (Arnoutf, Hans Adler, Dingo1729, Dailycare and mine). No one has supported your view. If you insist on forcing the HREGN on readers against consensus and verifiability, please be so kind as to leave a message on the other peoples talk pages as well. Please do not make me the culprit.

If you are mainly interested in the history of technology and the printing press, de facto seems much more important than de jure. You have hammered multiple times on "international recognition" and now suddenly state this is not about political history. I hope you see you are contradicting yourself. If printing a newspaper in Amsterdam in 1618 was in any way influenced by the vague de jure tie to the HRE, show it (not the proximity, refugees, trade relations or so). But don't mix up history for it. Please read the works of the British professor Jonathan Israel and point me to the Holy Roman Empire in those. If you have a problem using the single "Dutch Republic", take it up with historians and academics, not with me.

I do not manage your time, so do not make me responsible for what you do with it. If you want to make multiple changes to Dutch history articles, feel free to raise that issue there, not on my talk page.

Regards, Joost 99 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Rereading I realize I may seem unfriendly or stubborn, but that is not my goal. My goal is presenting readers with correct information concerning the situation in Amsterdam in 1618, conform Wikipedia and literature. I am sorry if you see my rejecting a "compromis" as anything different than that. Joost 99 (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, your choice. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: UDI[edit]

I would object on the grounds that it would make the reason for the Rhodesian UDI mention rather unclear; I'm of the opinion that the reason for hatnote entries' inclusion should be obvious/self-explanatory. 2 hatnotes is not uncommon. 3 or more (or ones that link to several pages) and I agree it gets more cumbersome; I just don't personally think we're near that point yet. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting Achtung Baby charting peak in Netherlands[edit]

Hey, if you'll recall, I was looking for some assistance a while back in referencing the peak charting number for Achtung Baby in the Netherlands, and you were generously able to help by looking up the information in the Albumdossier book. The peak in that book was listed at number 1. However, I've begun poking around at dutchcharts.nl and I've noticed that the archive of charting info that they have lists the album as peaking at number 2. I'm not sure if the information they have is correct or if the 12/28 chart that is missing is when the album actually went to number 1. Does the Albumdossier book give a date for when the album hit its peak mark? Would you happen to know where this discrepancy may come from? Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting indeed. If I remember correctly, the information in the book was only very limited. But if you look on the Dutch Wikipedia page nl:Nummer 1-albums in de Nederlandse Album Top 100 in 1991 (readable with a little imagination :-) you will see Achtung Baby is listed as being number one on 7 December 1991. It also states that 12/28 there was no chart published. Sadly the page has no source (the Dutch language wikipedia is not a strong pusher on sourcing material). The info by Dutchcharts.nl is clearly not the same as the info on the Dutch Wiki (and the Albumdossier). I know the album chart has changed names frequently throughout time, but there my knowledge stops. You could leave a message on the talk page of nl:Overleg gebruiker:Mager112001, I believe he is very knowledgable on this subject, as he created the 1991 page and still works on different chart pages. No doubt he will be able to tell you more (I assume he speaks English, if not let me know). Joost 99 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Check this out, though: the discography page for U2 on NL Wikipedia has 3 separate peak positions for each album. They are listed as "NL", "VK", and "VS". What are those abbreviations, are they for different regions in the Netherlands? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - it looks like VK and VS mean UK and US. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try[edit]

Hoi Joost wat nou, nice try? Het is een feit dat in de VS deze naam aardig wat voorkomt en dat dit van Kees komt. Wat is hier mis mee? Waarom dit verwijderd? Not so nice, Joost!--46.129.72.88 (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hai. Het gaat in deze lijst om gebruikte woorden in de Engelse taal, niet om namen. Maar ik geef toe dat ik daardoor niet direct aan de naam "Case" dacht, maar aan het woord case, dat natuurlijk niet van de naam Kees stamt. Daardoor hield ik het voor een grap en begrijp dat het dat niet was, mijn excuses daarvoor. Feit blijft wel dat dit niet in deze lijst hoort (je zult er verder ook geen andere namen in vinden). Joost 99 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fair enough. Ik heb overigens bij Case (name) wel een vermelding gemaakt. Ik hoop tot je tevredenheid. Regards,--46.129.72.88 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uiteraard. Ook ik heb weer wat geleerd :) Joost 99 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Amsterdam/Amsterdamsche Wisselbank[edit]

Hello Joost99,

I saw you removed the new link I had added to this article. However, discount bank is just the English equivalent of Dutch wisselbank. See for example this web page: [1]. So it's most accurate to say that the Bank of Amsterdam/Amsterdamsche Wisselbank was a discount bank. Unfortunately this wiki does not have an article about discount bank yet, while the subject already exists on the Dutch WP. Regards, The Wiki ghost (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD you participated in before, is back again[edit]

List of people who have been called a polymath is at AFD now. I am contacting everyone who participated in the previous AFD. Dream Focus 15:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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]