User talk:Erik Warmelink/Archive

Image:Frankish Domains at Time of Charles Martel.gif

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw the message and fixed the license, but unfortunately I forgot to answer om my talkpage. My apologies. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wapen van Loppersum

Hallo Erik, Ik heb je wijziging op image:Coat of arms of Loppersum.svg teruggedraaid. Het gaat hier om een schaalbare svg-afbeelding die naar believen kan worden vergroot. Als je een grote versie zoekt, dan kan je die hier vinden. Op de Duitse Wikipedia hebben ze voor grote PNG-versies van SVG-afbeeldingen handige linkjes: de:Datei:Coat of arms of Loppersum.svg. Met vriendelijke groet, Bouwe Brouwer (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Ehmm, ik zette die link onder het kopje "Source". Om te zien dat/of de .svg redelijk klopt, is die link volgens mij wel handig. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ik heb het wapen toch echt uit de afvalkalender gehaald ;-) --Bouwe Brouwer (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Ik dacht dat jij de .svg op basis van die pagina had gemaakt en daar staat tegenwoordig een wel erg klein wapentje. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ik heb het wapen gewoon met Inkscape uit een pdf-bestand (afvalkalender 2008) gehaald. Met het pdf-bestand van de afvalkalender 2009 is deze truc ook mogelijk. --Bouwe Brouwer (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Stad

Hoi Erik, fijn dat eindelijk ook eens iemand anders zich eens bezig houdt met de categorieën van Stad. Wat mij betreft komen er trouwens onder de door jou aangemaakte en o zo nuttige Category:Villages, districts and quarters of Groningen (city) cats te hangen voor alle stadswijken waarvan drie of meer plaatjes zijn. Groet, Wutsje (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is dat "drie of meer" inclusief of exclusief de plaatjes uit Category:Locator maps of Groningen (city)? Anders wordt het vaak wel erg makkelijk (2 "locators" en nog een plaatje ;-)). Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We zouden de grens ook bij vijf kunnen leggen, natuurlijk. Hoofdzaak is dat er es wat orde in komt, want wie nu een plaatje uit een bepaalde wijk nodig heeft kan zich op dit moment vaak nog helemaal wezenloos zoeken. Maar een kaartje van de wijk in elke desbetreffende subcat vind ik zelf niet zo'n gek idee. Wutsje (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ja, u zoudt de grens ook bij vijf kunnen leggen. Ik heb er echter geen zin meer in om per e-mail gestalkt te worden, terwijl er op het overleg vriendelijk gedaan wordt. De categorie is weer geheel aan u. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oaks v. Quercus

Erik, I moved the discussion to the TOL talk page so that more editors could read our discussion and participate if they choose. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia - Low Saxon

You categorized some files into Category:Spoken Wikipedia - Low Saxon. But the files are not part of Spoken Wikipedia. They are no spoken Wikipedia articles, but just examples of spoken Low Saxon. I couldn't find the right category to categorize sound files by the language that is heard in them. If you know it, please re-categorize in a new sub-category of that. --Slomox (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. But I can't find a better category either. Well, I couldn't when I created C:SW-LS, both original members do not exactly fit the definition:

• File:Nl-Witte wieven-article.ogg isn't a spoken version of nl:Witte wieven, but the plat pronunciation of the phrase "witte wieven";
• File:Geluidsopname Johanna van Buren.ogg is Johanna van Buren reciting (if I remember correctly) her own poem "Oale Grieze".

I did find nds-nl:Wikipedie:Nedersaksisch beluustern, but that is mostly external links: the best it can do is hinting a name.

On the other hand, I do think the sound files should be in a category, but I have no clue what the name should be. I also don't know whether it should include C:SW-LS, should be included in C:SW-LS or should be unrelated.

We need a better name, but I am at a loss. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is Category:Sound by language with the only member being Category:Sound in Esperanto. I guess, I will newly create Category:Sound files including Low Saxon text then. --Slomox (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. On the other hand, Category:Sound in Low Saxon or Category:Low Saxon sound files would be shorter. They would be unambiguous because (like Esperanto), Low Saxon doesn't have a state. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I already have reorganized them. We can of course rename the category, but I don't like "Low Saxon sound files" cause that could make some people believe, that a sound file with both Low Saxon text and text in another language cannot be in that category. I have thought about "Sound in Low Saxon" too, but is that a good expression? "sound" is something like "toon/klank" in Dutch, "Ton/Klang" in German which sounds weird applied on spoken text. Perhaps I misjudge English semantics, but that's how I reached at "Sound files including Low Saxon text" ;-) --Slomox (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Low Saxon sound files" is out, you convinced me.

I can't judge whether "Sound in Low Saxon" is a good expression, I don't know English, German, Dutch, or Plat that well. But it is short, and if there is no need to disambiguate, I prefer a short name. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way: Your Babel box states both nds and nds-1. Which one is correct? Wenn du mi versteihst, wenn ik neddersassisch in düütsche Orthografie schriev, denn bruukt wi ja keen Engelsch bruken. --Slomox (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can read it (nds), but I can't write it (nds-1). About your example, I can understand it, I would even say something very close to it. I only doubt "denn bruukt wi", Dutch would be "dan hoeven we" and I don't know what I would say when speaking plat. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Category:Sound files including Low Saxon text is unbeatable for now. It has far more files than I could find and the classification is better. Thanks, a lot. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

binomial names in italic, please

Hello. Please note that binomial names should be written in italic. This is an official scientific convention. For instance, Quercus robur. Yours, Frédéric (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and remember it. I had some problem to find a place where I changed it, I may have done it more often (I probably wouldn't even remember it), have you noticed it in other edits than 23137000? Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wappen Eichenbarleben

Hallo Erik! Die Wappendatei: Eichenbarlebenwappen.PNG kann gelöscht werden. Dieses Wappen hatte ich damals erstellt auf Grundlage eines Werbeschildes im besagten Ort. Doch nun habe ich Kontakt zum Landeshauptarchiv Magdeburg und erhielt von dort das korrekte Wappen so wie es in den Genehmigungsunterlagen abgelegt ist. Daraufhin habe ich dieses Wappen überarbeitet und jetzt als neue PNG-Datei: Wappen Eichenbarleben.png eingestellt. Also bitte alte Datei löschen! Danke. Gruß --Ollemarkeagle (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Eichenbarlebenwappen.PNG kann vielleicht gelöscht werden, aber es kann auch bleiben. Das Bild is vielleicht nicht schön, es is vielleicht kaum eine Alternatieve für File:Wappen Eichenbarleben.png aber das sind keine Gründe für speedy deletion: die Name is nicht falsch, das Bild ist nicht genau gleich. Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Quercus chrysolepis

Hi Erik; I don't understand your edits on Quercus chrysolepis.[3] Wouldn't the Italian name be "quercia" not "quercus"? Please see it:Quercus_chrysolepis. My impression is that "quercus" is Latin and not used in modern Italian. Also, why do you prefer the it tag over the more compact VN tag? Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ehmm, I really don't understand your first question, you literally write "[[:it:Quercus_chrysolepis]]. My impression is that "quercus" is Latin and not used in modern Italian.". As far as I know, if it:quercus chrysolepis exists, modern Italian does use "quercus". Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer {{It}} over {{VN}} because quercus chrysolepis isn't Italian vernacular. To mirror your question: why do you prefer {{Taxonavigation| Divisio|Magnoliophyta| Classis|Magnoliopsida| Ordo|Fagales| Familia|Fagaceae}} *Genus: '''''[[Quercus]]''''' *Species: ''''Quercus chrysolepis''''' Liebm. over the much shorter {{ToL|Quercus chrysolepis}}? Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I may have thought that "La Quercus chrysolepis è una quercia", from it:Quercus_chrysolepis, made my point. Quercus is not found in an on-line Italian dictionary.[4] The existence of it:Quercus_chrysolepis may be no more indicative of its use in modern Italian than fr:Quercus_chrysolepis is of its use in modern French. In the latter example, the article lists "Chêne des canyons ou Chêne à cupule dorée ou Chêne masse" as the French names of this species. In eswiki, species binomial name are used for article titles, also. Spanish names for Quercus include "roble" or "encina". In Italian, "la farnia" refers to the specific species it:Quercus robur, and "la quercia" appears to refer to Quercus. As an example, the poet, Giovanni Pascoli (1855 — 1912), uses "la quercia" in the poem quoted in it:Quercus. I was not able to find an Italian name for Quercus chrysolepis. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not your fault that English isn't my native language. I continue to think that "La Quercus" makes my point, Quercus has a grammatical gender, hence it is an Italian word. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As reluctant as I am to press you on this matter, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to cite an Italian dictionary or another reliable source of the information that "quercus" is a word in modern Italian. The use of Quercus in a botanical context in Italian does not indicate that it is an Italian word any more than its use in a similar context in English indicates that it is an English word. As I mentioned above, quercus was not found in an on-line Italian dictionary that I consulted.[5] The word "chrysolepis" was not found either. However, "quèrcia" was found. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no, it is good that you press me. But I could also ask you to find a reliable source which claims that dictionaries are exhaustive (or that dictionaries even try to be exhaustive). I did show that quercus is used in modern Italian. How many reliable sources would convince you; 100, 10,000, a million? And how many reliable sources would be needed for quercus chrysolepis? Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I did show it has properties which exist in Italian, but not in ToL­lian, as such, I consider it a loanword; why should I bring reliable sources for merely tangent matters, while you may deny actual evidence? Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of you not to take umbrage over my continued interest in this matter. Perhaps I might point out that "articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources" according to en:WP:PSTS which is included by reference in en:WP:RS. So, I wonder if it would be fair to say that you have provided no reliable sources for your assertion that quercus is used in modern Italian? Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to claim that dictionaries are needed to determine whether a word is used in a language. You do not give reliable sources for that claim (in fact, no serious linguist claims that languages without dictionaries have no words). The most reliable sources for a language are its speakers and writers. The Italian wikipedia isn't a reliable source when it writes "about"/"on the subject of" Italian, it is a fairly reliable source when it writes "in"/"using" Italian. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two rules that have been broken by the {{It}} addition in Quercus chrysolepis:

• {{It}} should contain an italian name of the species, not the scientific name Quercus chrysolepis.
• {{It}} should not be used when there is a {{VN}} because the italian name should be put in {{VN}} !

Quercus chrysolepis is a scientific name, not an italian name. Your problem is that there is no italian name for this species.

That is a very common problem, partially due to the fact that there are so many Quercus species.

Even if "Quercus chrysolepis" was the italian name of the species (very very improbable), we should not add {{It}}. This rules is always followed for genera that have often the same vernaculare and scientific name in many languages.

So we should simply suppress the {{It}}.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You claim that Quercus chrysolepis isn't an Italian name. Posting at wikispecies does not make one an expert on languages. Could you explain why it is la Quercus chrysolepis and not il Quercus chrysolepis if Quercus chrysolepis isn't an Italian name? Erik Warmelink (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm Italian. Quercus is a scientific name that hasn't usage in common language. Instead of english, Italian language has not a vernacular name for most species (animals or plants) but only for main species, In technical language we use (to fill the gap) the scientific name because there isn't a vernacular name. For all species of genus Quercus we use a generic vernacular name: "quercia". So, Quercus chrysolepis cannot be a vernacular name in Italian: Italian language is speaked mainly for italian people and most of italian people do not know this American species. Why they use a vernacular name for a species that is unknown? we usually call Quercus ilex as "leccio", Quercus robur as "rovere", Quercus suber as "sughera", Quercus pubescens as "roverella", Quercus coccifera as "quercia spinosa" and rare European Quercus present in Italy as generic "quercia", but we didn't set a specific name for all Quercus present in other lands of the world. In the italian article, the phrase "Quercus chrysolepis è una quercia ..." means "Quercus chrysolepis is a species of genus Quercus ... --gian_d (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I am late. You seem to have answered when parts of the discussion were not there yet (you removed the latest comments). In the article, the phrase was "La Quercus chrysolepis è ..." (my bolding; it is changed now, but it:Quercus pyrenaica still has "La Quercus pyrenaica").

Quercus has feminine gender in both Latin and Italian, and quercia in Italian is feminine too. That all three have the same gender probably isn't a coincidence, so maybe I put too much weight on it. On the other hand, I do think that a word which acquires properties like gender, has become part of yet another language. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Le vieux chêne d'Allouville-Bellefosse

Hi Erik. Commons:Categories states that Category names should always be in English. guillom 07:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I read Commons:Naming categories which is less strict (So far, Categories are in English). Thanks for the link, now I know the proper place to whine. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Tamil

Hello,
please do notice, however, that I have deleted this page on February 24, 2007 and at that time this category surely was empty. Your message seems to be a bit late, doesn't it? odder 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, but at that time there were far more Tamils than Poles (even if we include Masuren, Kashubians, Lemkos, and whatever you theofages want to claim to be Polish). Considering pl:Pogrom kielecki, you should not delete categories about people. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Category names that refer to objects or groups of people should generally be in plural form" (COM:C), e.g., Category:Tamils, that was created in 2004. Odder's edit was consistent with that guidance. Please don't call other editors en:theophages or other things that may be interpreted as personal attacks. To my way of thinking, you may benefit from reviewing the suggestions of COM:MELLOW. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I misinterpreted the summary by pl:Wikipedysta:TOR/Skrypty/ReinDeel33t. My failure to understand the summary doesn't excuse my reaction, however please note that I used "Tamil" as a plural in my initial reaction. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I do not feel touched & understand your nervousness. All in order. odder (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Flags with trifoils

Dear Erik, you just recently have created the Category:Trifoils in vexillogy for flags bearing trifoils. But because the naming conventions ask us to use Category:Flags with ... whatsoever for vexillogical categories I have replaced it by the correctly named Category:Flags with trifoils.
And for flags are no coats of arms I have replaced the text {{Category:Trifoils in heraldry}} by {{See also|Category:Trifoils in heraldry}}.
Thank you for your contributions and best wishes.--ludger1961 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For notifying me, but especially for the improvements. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi, ik zie dat je goed werk levert in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. Deze categories vragen veel maintenance en daarom zijn interwiki's naar disambiguation pages op de diverse wikipedia's zeer nuttig. Vermits deze disambiguation pages ook veel interventies vragen omwille van "lazy" categorisation (een attitude van: deze cat ziet er goed uit, dus het zal wel de juiste zijn) en tools zoals CommonsSense, verplaats ik dergelijke categorieën die zich al te snel opvullen, zoals Category:Jura naar Category:Jura (disambiguation). Als ik de Jura dan delete staat die op mijn watchlijst, en iedere keer dat iemand tracht die category te hergebruiken zie ik die komen en kan ik aanpassen waar nodig. Op lange termijn de meest efficiënte oplossing. Soms, zoals bij Category:Iris naar Category:Iris (disambiguation), waar die Iris alsmaar opnieuw gebruikt en/of gecreëerd werd, maak ik een redirect naar de meest gebruikte bestemming. Dus ik probeer zoveel mogelijk de betwiste/herbruikte namen helemaal vrij te houden. --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Bedankt voor de loftuitingen, maar over de rest van je opmerkingen, wil ik toch nog wat zeggen. Ik denk dat door categorieën te verwijderen of door ze te hernoemen naar een onduidelijker naam, je het anderen lastiger maakt om bij te dragen. Zo erg is het niet als een file even (of zelfs langer) in Category:Jura zou staan, op Category:Isle of Jura na, komen alle betekenissen ongeveer op hetzelfde neer; als Frankrijk of Zwitserland andere interne grenzen trekken, blijven heel wat bestanden net zo nuttig als nu, hooguit moeten ze ergens anders gecategoriseerd worden (en dan was het juist fijn geweest als ze onder Jura hadden gestaan).

Als een bot buggy is (en dat is CommonsSense, volgens mij), lijkt het mij beter om die bot te ontluizen, in plaats van hulpmiddelen voor mensen te verbergen (door hernoeming of verwijdering). Want meer mensen aantrekken is op de lange termijn de beste oplossing, dan is er tenminste nog een kans dat we kennis vergaren, in plaats van de werkelijkheid aan te passen aan het bijziende wereldbeeld van een klein deel van de mensheid die (om maar eens een voorbeeld te noemen) denkt dat een subcontinent van Azië een continent zou zijn, alleen maar omdat zij er wonen. Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope

---

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

 

Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Herby ^{talk thyme}, you forgot to tell which image or other content would be out of scope. You did remove RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972, but that was clearly within scope as far as I remember. However I can't check that anymore since you behaved as a typical administrator and deleted more than an hour of work. Erik Warmelink (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Erik Warmelink!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Miserable Failure.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BotMultichillT (talk • contribs) 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

It had categories since 2009-09-07 08:36. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Go-game-ear-reddening.jpeg

Hi, for File:Go-game-ear-reddening.jpeg, i made a mistake choosing the reason for deletion (error while pushing the button): it's not effectively Flickr washing but the license given on Flickr for such picture is "all rights reserved" and this is not a free license, so this cannot be uploaded on Commons. So it is not possible to change such license like that, while uploading it do Commons, and the Flickrreviewer failed twice checking this licence. So if you are the copyright holder, please change the licence on Flickr to a free license. If you are not, ask the copyright holder to do it.

Sorry, but for the moment, since the original license is "all rights reserved" on Flickr, we cannot upload it on Commons. --Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 11:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So the photograph made a mistake : when you release a picture on internet, you cannot release it twice under uncompatible licenses, it's either "all rights reserved" or free licenses, but not both. So the first released license is this which applied, and as he uploaded it from Flickr to Commons and not the opposite, the first licence is "all rights reserved" and this is this license which applies to such picture. Then, you should try to contact him and to ask him to change this license, the easiest way is that is changing the license on Flickr to CC-by-sa-3.0, then i can restore the picture (no need to upload it again). Sorry if this story of licenses looks problematic. Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 11:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i had to go yesterday so i couldn't reply fast. If you want i can restore such picture but then i have to submit it again for deletion. The difference with a fast deletion, it that there will be then a debate and a votation from different contributors, and you can defend your point of view. Should i do it? Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 12:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. See here :) Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 12:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Leesplenkske vaan de Mestreechter Taol.JPG

Good catch. Restored. --Meno25 (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If

You have issues with my editing I would be interested to hear it. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that more than 50% of your answer ("[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b>^{<small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small>}</b>") is all flashy and colourful, you might be able to find #Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope above. Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha - so communication to you is best an indirect thing. It is highly unlikely I will have deleted any image that you uploaded as "out of scope". It is far more likely that it is a page you created possibly without any images on. However I ceased to be an admin a while back so can no longer see deletions. I will find another admin to review the deletion & fix it if it was incorrect. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

About that "indirect", of course not, I would have preferred to keep the discussion under a single header.

If you would shorten your signature by 1 character for every image on the page you removed, your signature would look less like a dropped box of crayons; if I remember correctly there were more than 40 images on that page (even a non-administrator can read the deletion log, and there one can still see

• File:Fahndungsplakat2.jpg
• File:Fahndungsplakat.jpg
• File:Rafplakat.JPG
• File:Fahndungsplakat3.jpg

That kind of refutes your "without any images on", doesn't it? Erik Warmelink (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Then for a mistake I sincerely apologise. I am guessing however that the deletion log may show show that I deleted the page before there were any images & so it was an empty gallery then. It is highly unlikely I deleted a populated gallery. We will see if another admin agrees or not - either way I am sorry for any offence I have caused & if I was hasty in my deletion.

As far as keeping things together are concerned at the time I dropped admin rights I had something over 20,000 deletions here on Commons. Sadly I would be unable to watch every relevant page. No that is not good but there are so few genuinely active admins that those who are have a lot of work to do.

My signature has been the same across wikis for nearly three years now - you are the only person to object to it. As such I will do nothing about it. Thanks for the information. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I gladly accept the apologies for a mistake. However, your guess is wrong, I linked to the page as soon as 2009-08-25 22:43, my editing pattern around 2009-08-27 10:24 makes it somewhat unlikely that I editted the page around the time you deleted it. You linked to COM:PS, not to COM:PSP which didn't help to understand the speedy delete either. It's quite possible that the page isn't a quality page or even that it is deletion fodder, but speedily deleting it, is somewhat harsh, I think.

How many people have told you they don't mind the "signature"? How many people have left because someone proudly displaying their (lack of) age, deleted their work? Obviously, you didn't intend to give that impression, but how would you react if someone deleted your work and put a note on your talk page, accompanied by blinking, big, pink letters and some music? Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said - I apologise for my mistake & I am glad that Rocket has sorted this out.

On my signature you will not be surprised to hear I find your comments mildly offensive. You have no idea how old I am. I imagine I am at least a similar age to you, possibly older. However I fail to see what that has to do with it.

My signature contains no blinking letters, no music, nor is it pink. It is intended to replicate one of the thyme plants that I grow in my garden which is green in leaf & is covered in deep lilac flowers.

In passing it is not "your work" as it is freely licensed once you press save. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am surprised that you find the comments offensive, you choose a flashy badge, you waved it in my face and you continue to wave it in my face. You kind of apologized about the deletion, but continued to lay the blame with me: the page would have been empty (well, it wasn't), there would no pictures on it (42 seems a bit more than none).

It stays my work, how trivial that work may be. It does have a fairly free license, but your meatpuppet should attribute it when they copy&paste it. If you want to deny they are your meatpuppet, where on commons did you ask for the undeletion and/or where on commons did they tell you about the copy&paste? Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've apologised - I look forward to yours - User_talk:Rocket000#If.

My signature pre-dates any rights I've held on any wiki.

I've apologised several times now.

Please read up on the subject of freely licensing your material. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Rocket000 didn't put up User:Abigor/temp, but indeed I did ask for the place where you asked for undeletion and you did openly ask for undeletion. If you did not ask for User:Abigor/temp, I do apologize for believing diff 28971154.

The license allows a lot, but it does not allow to make a copy without attribution. It really takes some gall to propose to delete the original after copying it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you will ignore this as you have done with other postings here however I assure you I have not contacted Abigor on or off wiki on the subject of this page. I contacted Rocket.

That Abigor temporarily undeleted it so that others might see it is perfectly normal. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case I humbly apologize.

I am no admin, but as I understand it, it is possible to undelete a page under another filename (and then the attribution stays intact). I don't know how much work that is, compared to copy&paste, but if it is significantly more work, I would consider that a (software) bug. But even if it is more work and if Abigor/Huib copied it, so that others could see it, it would have been friendly if they told somewhere on commons that they copied it. Considering that the only place where that page was discussed was my talk page, that seems a fairly good place to mention it (especially since I was the only author and they "forgot" to mention that in the edit summary of the copy&paste).

About the signature, after a night of sleep I must admit that it might be the first coloured signature which I don't consider childish. I still consider it vain, though.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your kind message, answering it gave me some time to reconsider my reply to ++Lar: t/c Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem Erik - we all have bad days - I was having one I imagine when I deleted your page speedily - wrong of me. Commons is a good place, hopefully we can work together on making it better. If I can help do let me know. Thanks & regards--Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If - Random sub-heading

outdent; reacting to
No problem Erik - we all have bad days - I was having one I imagine when I deleted your page speedily - wrong of me. Commons is a good place, hopefully we can work together on making it better. If I can help do let me know. Thanks & regards--Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I am expressing myself very lousy, but you never retracted "It is highly unlikely I deleted a populated gallery". I see (at least) two possiblities:

1. You intended to speedily delete something else.

   As I already have said, I gladly accept the apologies for a mistake.

Looking at it now I cannot see a reason why I would have speedily deleted that page. Mental aberration, bad day, too quick - no idea I'm afraid.

I am not sure it is within scope - I am sure it is not a speedy one (imo). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand you don't know what happened anymore, it's several weeks ago. A speedy deletion doesn't get a lot of attention at the moment it is done and, as such, will be forgotten soon. But the second sentence brings me to the possibility below. I used less than 150 bytes per image, how can the page be outside scope if the images themselves are within scope? Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The page is very close to speedily deletable, but you don't want to hurt my feelings.

   That would be a problem, because if you don't tell me about it, I'll make the same mistakes again; that page will be speedily deleted too and ++Lar: t/c will block me for derogatory behaviour. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If - RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 restored

Restored. Honestly, I don't know if it's in scope or not (can't read it), but it's definitely not empty. Rocket000 (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the same text as can be seen on the wanted posters, but unfortunately we don't have high-quality scans. I admit that it might be better if I had copied the text only once. But if that was the problem, it still doesn't warrant an speedy delete, does it? (O, BTW, User:Abigor/temp looks like a copyvio and I was "asked" not to harass the copyviolator). Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to change your approach... you're being far too snarky for how we do things here at Commons. ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What else could I have done against the copyviolation? An admin who has "asked" me "once" to stay off their talkpage, copies a page I created, and then proposes the original for deletion. I couldn't ask them why, because they would then block me for harassing them on their talkpage. Yes, I am very irritated at the moment. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik, I don't know what you are trying to do but you really need to stop trying to damage my name, but I told you Commons will not accept your behaviour and that I don't want your behaviour on my talkpage.

First you place a user coming to my talkpage under attack and say to him that he is a sock http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAbigor&diff=28496236&oldid=28495701 , I guess it was mend for me but now you place a user coming to my talkpage under complete fire this user didn't email me and didn't come back, I hope that is what you want to do.

Otherwise you cant just come to peoples talkpage and call him sock, and give a lot of names, you should make sure you can prove it, or make a formal request on this page.

After that you are continues attacking me [6] , [7] so like you are saying you will get blocked for harassment, I guess when you continue this way that would happen indeed, but I will not be the one that pulls the trigger.

I would ask you again, please stop your behaviour towards me, you cant just call people socks without proof or just continuous attack people don't forget we are here for collection free media, not to attack users. Huib talk 02:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik, I have reviewed the diffs Abigor cites in his message, above. I don't care how upset or frustrated you are, that sort of behaviour is not acceptable. Do not repeat it, or any similar derogatory/trollish behaviour or you will be blocked. You are blocked on several other wikis so you should not expect a surfeit of second chances. ++Lar: t/c 06:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Lar, why I am frustated now: Sterkebak/Abigor/Huib made a copy without attribution of a page on which I spent some time1, 2, and a few hours later he put up the original for deletion. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already somewhat apologized for attacking Marcelo. It was a stupid error, but Marcelo made only one edit on commons. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If sterkebak/Abigor/Huib calls my vote "the most childish vote I ever seen" and starts Commons:Deletion requests/RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972, I don't "continues attacking" them, I react. The reaction be inappropiate, but I don't think it is out of proportion.

About edit 28,994,594, well, copying without attribution isn't allowed. Of course mentioning such an infringement can be seen as an attack; it can also be seen as a defence of my copyright (even though very little intelligence was needed to create it, copying took even less).

I am indeed blocked on two other wiki's for being a sock puppet of User:ErikWarmelink, who is blocked for quoting *and* attributing, like on nl.wikipedia.org this this oversighted by some user whose name I can't remember (though I would like to ask you to follow the first external link on the userpage of the user whose privacy I would have violated), and on en.wikipedia.org for quoting en:User:Wikifan12345. You mentioned "several" which seems somewhat exaggerated for two; am I blocked on other wikis? Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to argue about this. Your behavior is unacceptable, and you have been warned about it. What I'm looking for is "I understand others have issues with my behavior and I will try to do better going forward". What I'm not looking for is "he started it" or "Other people did X" or "What about other wikis". All of that is irrelevant. Stop casting aspersions, and stop making excuses. Herby is nice enough to overlook your past transgressions. Well so am I, as long as there are no more going forward. I hope I have made myself sufficiently clear. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand admins can and will block when they are out of arguements. I didn't start "what about other wiki's" (for example,I tried to be friendly with user:Wutsje (see #Stad above), but that only caused further stalking; I don't know (I even doubt) that Wutsje did the slaking, but stalked I was, on a tagged address I gave to wikipedia, but not through wikipedia-mail). You didn't "review", you believed another admin and now you are merely flashing your badge. Yes, you can block me, you can even oversight my answer, but you can't make me love Big Brother. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to love me, Big Brother, your mother, or anything else. You just have to agree to abide by our norms. Regardless of what others do or don't do, this isn't about them, it's about you. If that still isn't clear, let me know. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=200905160000&limit=5&type=rights&user=Lar Erik Warmelink (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

@SterkeBak/Abigor/Huib: you "asked" me to leave your talkpage (which I did).

That reaction was meant for you and/or others who stalk me in e-mail, and I hope that marcelo understood that. If SterkeBak and Abigor/Huib have another puppet master than the user:michiel1972/nl:Overleg gebruiker:85.214.45.170 complex, it seems awfully strange that shortly after 2009-09-10 18:53 a galgje@$somewhere (I don't remember the somewhere) tried to e-mail the account I gave to wikipedia. It's hard to believe it was coincidence, but it is possible that it wasn't sent by you and/or the puppetmaster of that other group. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I will remember for the next time when something is deleted that you have made that I cant move it to a other page so it can be showed to the deleting admin that isn't a admin anymore so we could make the undeletion happen fast, I guess it isn't that smart to call somebody a copyright violater when he is trying to help you with the undeletion, the diff is deleted, I hope your happy now. Huib talk 18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you may move and/or copy, all that is needed is attribution, and in this case almost no attribution (like an edit summary for a null edit) would be enough. About that "showed to the deleting admin", that admin says they didn't ask you and, as far as I can tell, you never told them. I don't care so much whether the page was undeleted (I didn't even vote to keep it), but I do care about the reasons for deleting it and "I kind of fail to understand how this fits our Scope, it is more something like a article for Wikipedia or Wikisource than it is a gallery." (by you) or "I am not sure it is within scope" (by Herby) doesn't help. What should change? It uses less then 150 bytes per image (and just including the images takes some bytes too). If there was no vote about deletion, I could make it even smaller, if that is needed. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hermitage busts

What are you doing? Files are renamed 'cos russian letters aren't always good for internet. Also you're removing administrative templates about existing duplicates. I'm Russian, but I can't understand why you're talking about Iraq, I'm just have problems with these files when I'm working from Berlin - Russian letters are converting in numbers and ??? like Chinese. Roman alphabet was invented by Romans, not Americans. Please don't do it anymore. --Shakko (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The lack of UTF support in some browsers might be a reason to rename files, but http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/48/20090713125139!Портрет_Бальбина.jpg and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/48/20090918184822!Портрет_Бальбина.jpg are not duplicates. The comment about Iraq was inappropiate, my apologies. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972

RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Huib talk

Hi, sterkebak/sterkeBak/abigor/huib, could you explain why your "failure to understand" would be a valid reason for deletion? Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of socking

If you have specific allegations of socking, with evidence to back the allegations up, please place a request at COM:RFCU, properly constructed and with the necessary supporting materials included per accepted practice, and it will be investigated. (Note that COM:RFCU has automation and detailed instructions to help you get it right) If you do not place such a request, or even if you do, please stop making any references in passing to users having socks. That sort of insinuation is not acceptable behavior. This may be the only warning you receive as I find my patience is rather thin with respect to your behavior. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

E-mail stalking doesn't generate diff's. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, pseudonym using the sockpuppet "++Lar: t/c", your "it will be investigated" seems to be as USian as the WMD in Iraq. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Recente bijdragen op Commons

Beste Erik, op Commons draag je constructief bij, maar je vliegt helaas zo nu en dan uit de bocht. Je hebt zo te zien nu al op twee wiki's een blok te pakken. Als je jezelf niet kan inhouden dan ben ik bang dat dat er binnenkort drie zijn. Dat zou jammer zijn. Probeer constructief te blijven bijdragen en denk even rustig na voordat je een reactie post. Multichill (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Zo makkelijk is het niet om rustig te blijven. Je kent id 29.051.373 van Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, onder "GabrielVelasquez" heb je zelfs gereageerd. Onder "Grzegorz Wysocki" waarschuwde ik tegen een zelfde soort heksenjacht als bij GabrielVelasquez, er werd me verteld dat mijn "comments [...] aren't true", en $DEITY-betert binnen 3 dagen wordt "Lulu989" afgesloten als sokpop, terwijl dat gezien een latere CU nogal voorbarig is, maar als ik alleen maar vertel dat abigor en michiel1972 sokpoppen hebben, moet ik me inhouden. Met User talk:Michiel1972#Hellendoorn - Galgeman maak ik duidelijk dat ik zoiets niet leuk vind, en dan gaat die ^&$&^$% van een Lar mijn moeder erbij halen. Ik moet me aan de normen van zijne stewardlijke majesteit onderwerpen, terwijl hij er overledenen bijsleept om me te kwetsen. Denk je nu echt dat ik me, na zo'n schoffering, nog druk maak over een blokkering? Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Als iemand u per mail stalkt, is dat uiteraard zonder meer verwerpelijk en dient dat op te houden. Het vervelende is alleen dat lastig is na te gaan wie dat dan doet, aangezien het, als ik u goed begrijp, niet per wp-mail gebeurt. Het enige wat wellicht zou kunnen, is onderzoeken of er een verband bestaat tussen het ip-adres van de afzender en een gebruiker op wp. U zou, zoals hierboven ook al is opgemerkt, daartoe een verzoek op COM:RFCU kunnen doen, dan kan een checkuser er naar kijken. Dat lijkt me de enige zinvolle stap die in dit verband te zetten is. Zonder duidelijke bewijzen anderen beschuldigen roept echter grote irritatie op, die geuit wordt in bewoordingen die kennelijk bij u ook weer grote irritatie oproepen, et cetera. Op deze manier dreigt een en ander uit de hand te lopen - er is zelfs al met een blokkade gedreigd. Dat zou bijzonder spijtig zijn, want als ik naar uw bewerkingen op Commons kijk, zijn die in overgrote meerderheid constructief. Mag ik u daarom verzoeken om de informatie te verzamelen en te overleggen die een checkuser-actie mogelijk zou kunnen maken? Helaas zal zo'n actie niet kunnen verhinderen dat u nog meer ongewenste mail krijgt, maar het is dan tenminste bekend met wie u te maken heeft. Dat lijkt me in iedereens belang, want ongefundeerde beschuldigingen leiden enkel tot escalatie - dat blijkt hierboven wel. Met vriendelijke groet, Wutsje (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Open proxy's hebben wel een IP-adres, maar daar kunnen CU's niet veel mee, want de "rechterhand"pop gebruikt vast geen open proxy's. Het zijn steeds verschillende IP-adressen, vaak al in anti-spam blacklists (en dan zie ik alleen de poging), en anders na een uur (of zo, dat heb ik niet bijgehouden). Neem bijvoorbeeld die galgje (dat nrcpts=0 betekent dat de e-mail geweigerd werd)

Sep 10 20:51:41 flits102-126 sendmail[22305]: UAA22305: from=<galgjepc03.cantv.net>, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=ESMTP, relay=190-37-134-224.dyn.dsl.cantv.net [190.37.134.224] (may be forged)

Wat wel kan, is kijken wanneer de mail is verstuurd: maar de resultaten die daaruit voortkomen, zullen door checkusers aan de kant gelegd worden. Op wikipedia val je nooit, maar dan ook nooit een collega af, zie de zaak Lulu989 hierboven. Ik wil eigenlijk geen problemen van andere wiki's hiernaartoe halen, maar nl:Gebruiker:ErikWarmelink/RuG - VKing maakt mij duidelijk dat men zelfs liever meerdere onschuldigen voor altijd afsluit dan het oordeel van een collega in twijfel trekt. Het enige wat ik bereikt heb, is dat ze niet meer als sokpoppen van nl:gebruiker:VKing worden bestempeld, maar als VKing lookalikes.

Ook aan u het verzoek om de eerste externe link op de gebruikerspagina van zijne penningmeesterlijke hoogheid te volgen en u dan af te vragen of het noemen van zijn naam (zonder die naam direct aan zijn nick te verbinden) eigenlijk wel privacy schond en, vooral, waartoe oversight in dit geval diende.

Maar vooral, betekent bovenstaande dat het bewerken van Category:Groningen (city) niet zal leiden tot een blokkade die door vrijwel niemand te controleren is? Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Inlichting

Voor het geval dat je het niet zelf ontdekt, zie Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User_problems#Erik Warmelink. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 day

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 day for the following reason: repeated attacks on other users. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

--MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're the admin, you don't need to tell why you attack. I was composing a message though:

• About those socks on two other wikipedia's, sterkebak/sterkeBak/abigor/Huib forgets to tell that those socks are user:ErikWarmelink and user:129.125.102.126. Well yes, I do use an IP-address to connect to the Internet and have been erik@flits102-126.flits.rug.nl (for mail, but also for talk, systat and so on) for a long time. It wasn't smart to initially take the name without a space, but most people will agree that "Erik Warmelink (talk)" is closer to ErikWarmelink than "Huib talk" is to Abigor. On en.wikipedia I am not a "self-admitted" sock, I am a self-reported sock (click on to (en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErikWarmelink/Archive). On nl.wikipedia the Ministry of Truth had to change nl:Wikipedia:Sokpop to retroactively explain blocks. I am not friendly (and I can very well understand that many pseudonyms think that I am extremely rude), but I am not a sockpuppet master, I am Hendrik Barend Gerhard Warmelink, born 29 April 1960 in Nijverdal, Hellendoorn, Overijssel, the Netherlands, on my homepage one can see where I live. I could, but I will not, take socks which aren't obviously me. And that makes the call for checkuser so incredibly insulting, I don't need to hide behind a nickname, I don't need multiple IP addresses (though I have used another IP-address, [8] isn't me, but dates that other IP address; a tunnel to 129.125.102.126 didn't work out-of-the-box). Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  Stop rambling on about socks and who you are. We don't care who you are. We don't care about the history you have at Wikipedia. We care about your edits here. Currently these edits are disruptive and that's why you got yourself blocked. Multichill (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  If Pieter wouldn't have warned me, I wouldn't have had any chance to defend. One of the accusations by sterkebak/sterkeBak/abigor/huib is (and I quote): "The most strange thing is that this user is saying I use socks but is indeff blocked on two wiki's for socking". If I am accused of socking, telling that I don't need multiple pseudonyms is relevant. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  Minor notice: If Pieter had not told you I would have - I checked your page 5 minutes after Pieter gave you a notice. --MGA73 (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  Minor calculation, on 17:14 you knew I was "guilty", and 5 minutes after 17:11, you checked my talkpage. You are an admin, aren't you? Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  En, als het jullie niet uitmaakt wie ik ben, waarom krijgt mijn adres voor wikipedia (niet wikimedia, overigens) dan nu spam over "the cure for cancer"? Maar ik moet me blijven inhouden, is het niet, laffe schuilnaam? Ik moet maar bewijzen wie van jullie het is, het adres zou immers ook geraden kunnen zijn door spammers die heel toevallig over kanker beginnen. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I did twist "i was even going to block him but since", --Mardetanha ^talk said just the opposite of what I claimed them to have done. They said that they wanted to block me for my disrespectful edits, but then didn't block me when I opposed their RFCU, in order to avoid the impression that I than gave anyway. I was wrong, stupid, childish and much more, but I did not try to give Túrelio that impression, I misread it ("Ik wou je zelfs maar gaan blokken, omdat" vs. "Ik wou je zelfs gaan blokken, maar, omdat"). Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: Calling me and other people names is unacceptable behavior. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Multichill (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What date is one week after 08:33, 23 September 2009 (or 20:00, 22 September 2009)? Will you block me for telling you that the average 6 year old is able to add 22 and 7? Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on Erik, let's not waste our time on discussions if 23+7 ends on 30 september or on 1 october in the morning. It would be really ashame if you waste your undoubtly sharp mind on such little details. Lets work together on this bloody Commons; it needs your goodwill. --Foroa (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It may come as a shock, but I don't consider blocks by computationally challenged pseudonyms "working together". We wouldn't have to spend time on discussions whether other pseudonyms made an error, if you hadn't felt the urge to defend those other pseudonyms. My mind isn't sharp and that makes your attempt to defend that other pseudonym bleep. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

t het gain zin...

Erik, t het haildal gain zin om kwoad te worden hier. Laange diskuzziebiedroagen binnen ook naargens goud veur. Dat is apmoal verspilde tied. T gait hier mainst om aofbeeldingen. En t is jammer dast doar nou nait mit aan gaang kinst. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

t Hef neet völle zin, maar wel n bettien zin. Man'ge admins hier denkt dat blokkieren genog is, maar dat is't neet. As ze mi neet könt overtugen dat de blokkiering richtig was, dan helpt de blokkiering neet. En as ze neet eens probiert om t dudelijk te maken, dan bin ik niet lief. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons for 2 weeks. The reason for the block is continued harassment and unacceptable behaviour (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I am impressed, the script kiddy has blocked me for 14 days. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that more than just "script kiddies" find stuff like [9] unacceptable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems –Juliancolton | ^Talk has decided that I will not again tell that kiddies drive people away. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A discussion regarding your behavior

Please be aware that I have started a discussion regarding your inappropriate recent behavior. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I appreciate that. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

@Erik, I really don't understand your comments at Commons:Village pump#Private Abuse Filters. Surely you are aware that the tolerance level for such kind of comments hasn't been that high as of recently and that the reaction (see above) was somewhat predictable. I mean, if you want to leave Commons, which I could understand after recent events, wouldn't it be better for you to say something like "guys, that's enough for me" and quit (permanently or temporarily) on your own, instead of getting indef blocked? --Túrelio (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The abuse filters which I did review all had "editcount <" (or something, being blocked, I can't check it anymore). Such rules drive away new contributors, but don't hamper pseudonyms.

I don't want to leave commons. I especially don't want to leave it to a few hundred accounts who consider blocking the ultimate way of discussion. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 6 months

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 6 months for the following reason: Intimidating behaviour/harassment: continued harassment and unacceptable personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Hi Erik, I have just blocked you for the duration of 6 months. Please see this as a final warning and a last chance to reflect on your behaviour. The way you are currently treating people around here will get you blocked indefinitely and not change anything. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi pseudonym, I hadn't expected anything else. A small thought for you: what is more intimidating on commons than blocking? Erik Warmelink (talk)

And what is more intimidating off commons than threatening to murder someones family?

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/search/default.aspx?q=gagelman&LA=NL gives one hit

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/search/default.aspx?q=galgeman&LA=NL gives zero hits

An email like "We know where your father lives" with a link to File:Map - NL - Hellendoorn - Wijk 02 Nijverdal Noord - Buurt 03 Galgeman-industrieterrein-Noord.svg is intimidating if one speaks Dutch and knows that "galg" means "gallow". Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people seem to think that it is acceptable to misname pictures on Commons or they don't realize that the picture is misnamed.

http://www.google.com/search?q=gagelman gives 13,200 hits (13,100 when adding "-wikimedia")

http://www.google.com/search?q=galgeman gives 113 hits (56 when adding "-wikimedia") Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Erik! Mistakes happen. Please do not suggest it is on purpose unless you have good arguments and really find it neccecary. If you tell it in a nice way people will be happy for your assistance. It would also look good in your "caracter book" if you made a serie of "good edits". --MGA73 (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mistakes happen, but can you explain why a bot would introduce a misspelling which can be read as a threat to hang my father? Can you explain why the bot operator doesn't want to reveal which version of the CBS data is their alleged source? Can you explain why I got that mail with "We know where your father lives" (not literally, it was in Dutch). Can you explain why the misspelling is so important that the person telling that it is a misspelling should be blocked? Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I do not know where the spelling error was introduced, at the CBS or after the data was copied from the CBS site. If it happened at CBS, it is probably a mistake (gagel isn't that abundant anymore), but then the bot-operator would have no reason to not tell me their source. If the bot-operator "fixed" the spelling, he could have asked to rename the picture. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The email can only be seen as threatening, in my opinion. One had to find the place where my father lives, to correlate it with the gallows (that is: spot or make the misspelling), to find out my tagged email address and to send the email from an open proxy. Perhaps you can give a scenario where all that happened by mistake, but I can't see it as anything else than an attempt to drive me away, backed up by a threat to murder my father. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The harassment continues. Erik Warmelink (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  That diff is from one of your supporters. Even they harass you, eh? Wknight94 ^talk 12:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps you didn't read the summary ("Where did that metafor come from?"). Thank for me reminding me. It seems the remarks about hanging were reintroduced earlier by mattbuck. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  How about answering http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=39031843

  1. I told you about heat and kitchens on 2010-05-08 22:52
  2. You propose to delete one my uploads on 2010-05-08 23:44 (52 minutes later, and less than 9 hours after you whined about others proposing to delete your uploads).

  Instead of admitting you were somewhat hypocritical, you are trying to get me indef blocked. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  Instead of admitting your prejudice against Americans, you're whining about metaphors in a thread from seven months ago. Wknight94 ^talk 14:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  This is the thread about the 6 months block I got, because I wouldn't shut about those threats. Mattbuck revived those threats less than 3 days ago, though the emails only started up again after . Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  About prejudice, if you had reveived a halfway decent education (but also if Category:UNPROFOR Dutchbat headquarters in Potočari had been better categorized), you would have realized that diff 39410637 shows a general prejudice, not only against "Americans". Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  No education is necessary to understand your POV and your insecurity. But keep pretending to know anyone's education level if that makes you feel better. You say I have a poor education but you haven't figured out how to stop threatening e-mails - even six months later?! Step 1: get a new e-mail address! The uneducated Americans at Google made that very easy: Gmail. Wknight94 ^talk 16:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  Why would I go to Google if I have my own mail server? And yes, I am spoilt, I can post erik@flits102-126.flits.rug.nl and erik@selwerd.nl almost everywhere and all that happens is some more useless attempts to deliver spam. I don't need a pseudonym or a 41gmail.com account. However, I somewhat need to accept email to the addresses I gave to wiki[mp]edia and I receive the threats on those addresses. Of course, I could change them, but what good would that do? Wiki[mp]edia promised not to give those addresses away (yet on those addresses I was informed about a very extended family, all of whom, except me, have died in Nigeria, in plane crashes, revolutions &c.), but I don't see why the new addresses wouldn't get the same email (y'all already know where my father lives). Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Reinders.png

File:Reinders.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well pseudonym, if you and other MMORPGers (or is it a majestic plural?) would appreciate it if I could go to voice my opinion, you know what to do.

If, on the other hand, you are interested in my opinion, I'd like to point you to diff 64 942 667 at de.wiki, which added de:vorlage:logo (after I copied the image to Commons, by the way). Indymedia released the picture under cc-by-sa-2.0, the main problem is whether the photographer may reproduce the logo.

If, on the third paw, you only came to troll, you failed. Bad troll, no cookie. Erik Warmelink (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked again, http://de.indymedia.org/2007/04/173963.shtml still has cc-by-sa-2.0. Erik Warmelink (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Erik Warmelink (especially this edit), it seems that I unintentionally did take the bait. Erik Warmelink (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The "logo in the background" could very well be the logo of the 1. Mai 2007 which posted http://de.indymedia.org/2007/04/173963.shtml. Of course, someone outside 1. Mai could have found the picture and faked the press release, but "Hans Martin Schleyer war bei der SS bevor er in der BRD Arbeitgeberpräsident wurde, und niemand habe sich bei seinen Opfern entschuldigt. In der damaligen CSSR gab es sogar einen Haftbefehl gegen Schleyer, der nicht vollstreckt werden konnte." makes right wing (or "more centrist") imposters improbable. I think (and that is POV) 1. Mai would have protested any imposter (hardly for the copyright of the logo, but almost exclusively for the published text). Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Miserable Failure.jpg

File:Miserable Failure.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Sevela.p 10:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Please try to avoid getting blocked again, and keep up the good work in the meantime. Welcome back. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You could help, by staying away from my talk page, or by getting rid of that immature signature. Anyway, thanks for pretending you aren't aching to block me again. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

your comment

I have read your comment several times. But I still do not understand what you are trying to tell me. Please rephrase your comment. -- Common Good (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ik heb je opmerking hierboven proberen te begrijpen, maar 't is geen Nederlands. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ik sol oe geerne begriepen, moar dan mo-j neet welsch lullen. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

your edits

I brought up your conduct at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems.Prezbo (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I appreciate that. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Creationism??

How is this edit "creationism"? Please do not revert using pejorative terms like that in future. ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that Stillwaterings edit was creationism. I wanted to say that "realistic educational purpose" is far too close to the demands to teach trimonotheistic mythology. I would even say the rejected proposal goes further, I can somewhat understand why christian fundamentalists embrace creationism (Genesis says it), I can't understand why they oppose what they see as Gods creation (Song of Songs praises its beauty). Saying "please" looks somewhat like "WMD in Iraq", "OILF" &c., if everyone can see that you mean "don't revert Stillwaterings edits or I will block you". If you want to block anyone opposing your protege, you have a lot of blocking to do. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You've trailed away into rather unclear wording there, I'm afraid. My admonishment is that if you revert, make sure you give an understandable reasoning so that people know what the issue is. Your revert was undone rather quickly. It's better still to discuss the issue rather than reverting. But just to be clear, SWR is in no way a protege of mine. What I want to see is this contentious subject discussed as harmoniously as possible. By everyone. Careful use of edit summaries will help.++Lar: t/c 19:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes sir, Stillwatering is not your protege and the edits of Stillwatering should not be reverted. Discussions about sexual content should be in understandable English, but the English may not be clear. Yes, sir, yes. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn't the way to be calm and collegial. Reversion rather than discussion in general is not a good approach. But revert if you can't find a different way to work to a compromise wording. Regardless of who. However, if you continue to be snarky, that's not a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm is a way to stay calm. If you don't want me to use words which might hurt your feelings, I wouldn't mind writing Low Saxon or Dutch to you. Why don't you be civil and use Dutch when speaking to me? Especially don't use hidden meanings like "that's not a good thing" (for "you will be blocked"). As I said before, you can block me, you can remove my words, you can even oversight them, but that is not the way to make me see you as anything else than a scriptkiddy with buttons. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care what you think of me, except that if you don't get where I'm coming from, you may well misunderstand me when I tell you that you need to not be sarcastic here. ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Try again. You are not clear, the obvious meaning of what you say is simple not true, I don't need to not be sarcastic. Perhaps you mean that if I am sarcastic, you will block me or ask someone else to block me. However, I have no need to volunteer my time on commons, I can volunteer it elsewhere or not volunteer it at all. You just have forgotten how to speak clear English, haven't you? If you drop the unctuosity, I might understand you. I note you refuse to return the favour of addressing someone in their native language. Your use of "come from" and "get" is unclear to me. Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Commons:Sexual content

Edit warring is not acceptable. Blocked for 2 hours. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent comment on Commons talk:Sexual content

That was a bad idea, and you probably knew that. I've undone your comment. Roux (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it a bad idea? I am Erik Warmelink, I am not Eric Warmelink. Why should I accept slander by a yank who hides behind a pseudonym? Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mis-spelling one letter in your name isn't slander. For slander, see Stillwaterising's disgusting comment about hosting my child porn collection. Roux (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I misspelled one letter in (s)he/its pseudonym too, (s)he/it misspelled my real name. I know (s)he/it slandered you more, but (s)he/it is "not a protege of Lar" and, as such, untouchable. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to attack people for using pseudonyms--which is their right here--you'd best start attacking me, too. Roux (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't misspell my name, you didn't claim to represent THE LAW. You voice opinions; sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't. You never blocked me, you never told me I "need" to do something or refrain from doing something. You undid my comment and told me so, and now we are talking about it. And most importantly, there isn't a user:Roux123456789 or user:kid_born_in_94 saying "per Roux". Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

None of that matters. You're going to attack people for using pseudonyms? Then attack us all; you don't get to pick and choose based on whether or not you agree or disagree. In the English-speaking world, Eric is a far more common spelling than Erik, and is a simple mistake to make. Please note the key word there: mistake. Unlike your attack, which was deliberate. There is a difference between the two. Further actions are your choice. Roux (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Erik Warmelink is both my nickname and my name in real life (well, OK, officially I am „Hendrik Barend Gerhard Warmelink“, I was born „Hendrik van Ghendrik van Meisters Hendrik“), For triage: I am not an architect; I am erik@flits102-126.flits.nl, erik@selwerd.nl, user:129.125.102.126 and the SUL-accounts User:Erik Warmelink and User:ErikWarmelink. I was blocked for 6 months on commons because I wouldn't be silent about the threats against „Ghendrik van Meisters Hendrik“. How does one misspell a nickname, if I misspelled your name as "rouge" because that's "far more common spelling" than roux, how would you feel? Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

One misspells it by thinking in one's head that it is something else. That happens. And in fact 'rouge' is not a more common spelling for 'roux'; rouge means red, while roux is a cooked mixture of flour and butter. Your outrage is your own business, have fun with it. Roux (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 09f80139c1aae30bfc3aadf4f4223752

Ik moet even een edit doen om een TUSC account te bemachtigen. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist-wo-uploads

In reply to this note. I suggest you tick the checkbox "Hide the upload log from the watchlist" in your Preferences under Gadgets => "Interface modifications". –Krinkle^talk 21:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds promising. I'll try it and report back (in fact, if I don't report back, I've probably forgotten about it, which means that I liked it). Thanks! Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I had the same feeling last year and wrote a little script and at some point decided share it as a gadget for anyone to use. –Krinkle^talk 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't work. File:Broeke (Neede) 1818.jpg still appears in my watchlist. Erik Warmelink (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Hellendoorn_NH_Rol_362.JPG

File:Hellendoorn_NH_Rol_362.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Wknight94 ^talk 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't

add comment like this again. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't threaten my father if you want me to shut up. Don't command me in the language of the war criminals who invaded Iraq. Do you deny that you were notified outside commons? You say don't have time to contribute, but you do have time to whine at my talk?

Threaten you father??? Iraq??? What are you talking about? Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny that you were asked to comment outside commons? I don't talk to meat puppets of the people who threaten to hang my father, command me in Dutch, Low Saxon or German, if you think you can command me. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can notice from checking the history of that page, I was one of the first to comment - and my (first) comment was that Tiptoety should be notified. I noticed the page because Huib (abigor) posted a link to it at IRC #Wikimedia-Commons (in the public channel, not to me). I have not discussed this issue offwiki with anyone. Since my German is limited to read only, and Dutch/ Low Saxon even more so: Ikke gjør slike redigeringer igjen! Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked you a plain question: Do you deny that you were asked to comment outside commons? Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What edits, edits explaining that IRC #Wikimedia-Commons is outside commons? Just like de.wiki is outside commons, but at least it is a wiki, so that other admin could link to an open call for participation. Thwe scriptkiddy channel isn't logged. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, admin, you also edited away some comments, about Commons:Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship). You really are pathetic. Threats, lies, and meat puppets. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

About threatening my father, that was the trick the stewards also used last time, see http://da.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=3558145. It really helps to threaten someones family if you want to make them angry. Ask Lar, if you aren't him. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to note for clarification that I am not (since september 09) an admin at Commons [10], and I have never made any threats against your father - nor that I recall any "threats" (formal warnings) against your user account here or at other projects. That you find me to be "really pathetic" is of no great concern to me, your statements about me being a "meat puppet" and "lying" I chose to ignore as long as they're unexplained and unsourced. As for who I am: I am user:finnrind signing as "Finn Rindahl", finnrind is a "pseudonym" (known as username), the latter is my real name. Feel free to call me by my username, my first name or my full name - even "FR" is acceptable. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin

then I humbly apologize for the allegation. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Threats against my father

The first threat isn't time related to your removal of my contribution (I did contribute because of the first threat, though). The second threat could be done by anyone just watching my talk page. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is: I have no reason to assume you sent either of the threats. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

pathetic

You still an admin at no and meta, which explains why you still can't say what was so terrible about

The pseudonyms surely were active. Canvassing for votes, threatening a user outside commons, protecting the page. en:wiki isn't a reliable source, en:the Register isn't a peer-reviewed journal, but their writers have finished high school. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/ Which of the 23 votes is not a member of the kids' list? I eeven ask, which of the 23 votes isn't also Tiptoety?

(typos retained) Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

meat puppet

I was referring to "votes" by accounts such as Keegan or KillerChihuahua, who only appeared to vote for a fellow member of the admin club at en.wiki. I mentioned that because Túrelio tried to dismiss votes from the de.wiki sexuality club. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

lying

removing comments, is denying them. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note to acknowledge that I have read what you wrote here. I don't think either of us would benefit from continuing this discussion, so I will not add any further comments to this unless specifically asked to do so. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked for 24 hours because you just can't seem to abide by the civility that everyone else does. You were warned not to re-add things and you persisted. You attacked Finn when he came by to talk to you about. I suspect that if it had been a different admin giving out this block, given your block record, you'd be blocked for far longer. Cool it. ++Lar: t/c 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. You can threaten me, you can block me, you can oversight my contributions, but you can't make me love big brother. Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Who you love is your business. How you act when you are here is, unfortunately, the business of the admins. ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the permission to determine for myself whom to love. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Finnrind didn't come to talk, but to leave an order. Finnrind was civil enough to be clear. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Per

Hi there Erik.

All semantics aside, tempers have been running hot on Commons. The withdrawl of the request admits that, and I thanked Abigor for recognizing that. Your replies to my comments, and your talk page message, are not conducive to collaboration. I get it if you don't know what I do on WMF projects, but you can take the time to check since it's linked to on my userpage.

I suppose my point is that tempers were flaring on Commons, even yours. This does not give you the authority to say that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I do. Links to wiktionary for the definition of "per" are inconsequetial, because it's a silly argument about wording I used that is standard for primary English language Wikimedia projects. Again, out of caring, if you feel this heated and need to post such a message on my talk page here you are in need of a walk on the beach or some other means of not letting Commons and this argument in particular cause you to confront a fellow Wikimedian in such a way. I don't know you, and you don't know me, and our paths may never cross again. You do not have the right as another supporter of free media to not accept a basic principle of wiki culture.

I'm not angry, offended, or hurt, and I hope that you are not as well. Keep up with the contributions, and like all things this too shall pass. Happy editing! Keegan (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you would know what you are talking about, you wouldn't use a term you don't understand. You admitted to being a puppet of Lar ("per Lar"). I have every right not to accept meatball:DefendEachOther, especially if abuse of powers is defended. DefendEachOther isn't wiki-culture, it may be en.wiki apparatchik culture. Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Plattdüütsch translation

Hi Erik, I see you are native Plattdüütsch. Is there any possibility that you could do up the Plattdüütsch (nds) documentation for Template:Kremlin.ru. It would be appreciated if you could help out with that. Cheers, --russavia (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I will try to translate, but note that I have not learned to write in Platt (the nds-1 on my userpage). Another problem is that Platt is seldom used in official settings, so translating "copyright" is already difficult. Erik Warmelink (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice?

I may be out of line here, and feel free to delete this section of your talk page whether you take my advice or not -- but I was trying to understand the controversy around you and people on both sides of the issue. I think you work from good-faith, and that you have valuable insights to contribute to our project -- it seems that people find it easier to dismiss you however when you reach for analogies, likening events to historical aberrations.

Without making any judgement on whether the analogies are correct or not, I think it might be prudent to try and make your point with a little less emotion, and less drawing on historical examples. As they say, somebody can argue the truth very poorly, or argue a lie very well - and I think right now the truth of some of your words is being ignored by people who instead focus (consciously or unconsciously) on their perception that your style of debate is not "good".

Anyways, keep up the good fight, and don't let the bastards wear you down. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 07:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Hi. You have participated in the long debate about Ottava Rima. You may want to vote in the final poll about his block. I might have summarized your expressed opinion already, if so please check that it is correct! Only one vote ( Support,  Oppose or  Neutral), with a block length in case of support. Nothing more in this subsection! Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK, a block of a few hours might do some good, though. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"retarded"

Could you please avoid use of that term, regardless of how you personally feel? You've been warned about not inflaming matters multiple times. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I have asked you multiple times to only question my choice of English words, once you speak to me in a language which isn't your native language. This is so insulting: I take the trouble to write in your (plural) language, because y'all are too *bleemp* to learn more languages. Because y'all don't understand other languages, y'all are *bleeping* *bleepant* of cultures which are less *bleeped* than US "culture". You *bleeping* didn't even give the diff of the contribution which allegedly hurt your tender senses (but torturing Iraqis to death for some oil is OK, *bleeping* *bleep* that you are).

You even blocked Roux because he used a much, much clearer English than that unctuoos, *bleepy* language you prefer. I can only conclude that you want to raise the bar for people who aren't native to the Bible Belt. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 3 days

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 3 days for the following reason: Intimidating behaviour/harassment. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

The comment you left on User:Stillwaterising's talk page is not on, directed at the editor (rather then the editor's contributions) and is an attack on the editor. Lar has suggested you avoid using "retarded". Bidgee (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As a unrelated editor, other than giving Erik some advice a couple days ago about "being careful with his language choices", I would point out that he didn't call anybody retarded, he referred to "retarded morals". Now, I'm not sure if English is Erik's first language or not, but almost all Latin-based languages (Romantic, if you prefer) use "Retarded" to mean "Slow at evolving/developing", so any system that seems to lag behind others would rightfully and inoffensively be labelled "retarded". The retarded system of governance in Jordan, the retarded Chinese space program, the retarded morals that label nudity offensive. They're all perfectly applicable uses of the word.

Again, I don't know if that is the issue at stake here, but assuming it is not part of some larger pattern of intimidating behavior, I think it may be prudent to not block somebody for using a word in its literal sense. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 04:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, my use of "retarded" in that contribution is euphemistic. The white, christian "cultures" in countries where those cultures genocided the original inhabitants, claim to be based on Greek and Jewish roots. Three millennia ago those cultures were far more enlightened than certain sects of Christianity are today. See wikt:retarded, please note both the first meaning and the language of that wiktionary. Erik Warmelink (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the diff. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that the "comment I left" is diff 39334257 and Lar's "suggestion" is diff 39349189? I didn't follow Lar's "suggestion" more than two hours before it was given. Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a few minutes to document the "larger pattern of intimidating behavior" by Erik Warmelink. All but the first are from a two hour period just after midnight UTC. They are all personal attacks, in my judgment, and target a number of different editors, so it is a problem that is not going to be solved by separating a couple of combatants. A ban on participating in deletion discussions related to sexuality may be helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

1. you showed your US (lack of) education around 30 times today. [11]
2. Nominator should first learn to count. [12]
3. Do not force your auto-censored after threats by User:Lar standards on more enlightened wikipedias.[13]
4. legal threats by a prude pseudonym. [14]
5. The allegation of pornography says more about User:Jayen466/JN466 than about the picture.[15]
6. Could User:Stillwaterising fullfill his/her/its prulient^[sic!] interests somewhere else, please? [16]

Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

None of them seem intimidating, although I agree Erik seems to have some anger-control issues (buttressed by the fact this all occured over a short period of a couple hours...). Certainly poor behaviour in a couple of those comments, although if he had replaced the username with simple "Nominator", I think I see a similar vote in every DR. "Nominator needs to learn to count", "Nominator needs to back off project", "Nominator needs to relax and calm down", "Nominator needs to stop inventing fictitious policies" (I admit it, I think the last one was my own). But I'm not suggesting Erik is the model Wikimedian Citizen; but I can't help but feel that his juvenile reactions to criticism and perceived censorship are just that...juvenile. They don't seem malicious or bad-faith, and at the end of the day, he has apparently been banned frequently in the past...so we know that 'banning him for a longer period' doesn't help the situation. But he's a good-faith editor, and an "even longer" ban would do no good (dedicated editors return anyways, and you'd just find yourself dealing with similar behaviour from a "David Bronsefeld" in the future. I just think he seems to be the poster-child for somebody needing some outside-the-box thinking from administrators and those opposed to him - not the same old sundry "banhammer" that has failed in the past. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 05:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a notice at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#3_day_block_by_Bidgee.[17] Bidgee blocked Erik Warmelink for "an attack on the editor". I agree with Bidgee's assessment of that instance and cite other recent instances above. Google doesn't find "David Bronsefeld"; perhaps you might provide a link. I share your concern that Erik Warmelink is unwilling or unable to change his behavior and that he has been unresponsive to blocks. We would welcome an alternative to an indefinite block. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@Wsiegmund, ever considered using any language but English, or waiting until the time the USA is not murdering civilians? Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@Max_Rebo_Band, your solution won't work. It merely replaces a username with a superficially less clear "nominator". Anyone (well, almost anyone) will see through the unctuosity. In effect, the original "attack" is still there, but the far, far more insulting attack (that the "nominator" would not be able to realize/remember (s)he/it is the nominator) is added. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@Wsiegmund

1. Again, euphemistic. Cirt knowingly or unknowingly added false information. If knowingly, Cirt is a vandal; if unknowingly, Cirt may be generally unable to absorb knowledge or lived in an environment where knowledge about non-WASP culture is sparse. In my opinion I choose the possibilty which is least damning for Cirt.
2. Again, euphemistic. Either Blurpeace lied, was too lazy to estimate or can't count to thousand.
3. Not intended to be intimidating. Dragons flight tried to take away editorial choice by nominating one picture out of a set of two.
4. Accurate description, a pseudonym threatens with a law, which doesn't apply to commons according to the legal expert of the foundation. Not a good reason to delete.
5. Accurate description, anyone who thinks File:Angel BDSM.png is pornographic, has a fetish which isn't shared by me.
6. Accurate description, Stillwaterising is (almost?) exclusively nominating pictures which would be OK in most cultures. Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@Bidgee, I repeat http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=30668980. Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a citizen of the United States of America and I object to your attack on me based on my nationality. [18] Last year, you called me a "nuclear terrorist" because of my nationality.[19] Such attacks are unkind, unhelpful and not relevant to discussions. The assumption that an individual is determined by his/her nationality tends to engender conflict, not understanding. I don't communicate well in any language other than English. While I wish that were not so, and while I have spent several years studying other languages, it is true. I admire people who are fluent in more than one language, but I am not one of them. Please make your points based on Commons policies and guidelines. At best, your attacks on other editors will be ignored by the closing administrator. On the other hand, the citation of relevant policies and guidelines is as welcome as insightful and calm discussion. I think you are correct that attacking the "nominator" is as much a personal attack as attacking him/her by username. But, will you agree not to attack other editors? If someone attacks you, your recourse is to bring it to COM:AN, a recourse that is available to everyone. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am very disappointed that the community has allowed Warmerlink's brand of hate-mongering... drawing ties between individual American editors and the Iraq War or "murdering civilians" or nuclear terrorism (whatever that is). If I were to draw ties between Warmerlink and Apartheid or the Holocaust or even Joran van der Sloot, my survival here would no doubt be short! Why is someone who cannot even respond to a welcome message like a normal person given so much leeway? And it is not an English issue, look at the block logs on nl.wp [20][21], to go along with two permablocks each at meta and en.wp, not to mention a recent six-month block here. Why are we enduring this person? Wknight94 ^talk 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Basically, Erik got blocked for 3 months on nl:WP; when that block expired, he lasted less than 10 days before being blocked for six months, and when that block expired, he lasted less than 10 days before being blocked for a year. All for consistent personal attacks. Plus sockpuppeting around his block. If this user were able to learn from blocks, he would have learnt it by now. Make it indef, and wait for the socks. --JN466 21:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because "indefinitely ban him and deal with his sockpuppets" sounds like it'll really help the problem go away. Let's instead focus on rehabilitating Erik, rather than pillorying him. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to block my sock puppets, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErikWarmelink/Archive, considering that User:ErikWarmelink is blocked at meta and both wikipedias where I use it (at other wikipedias I created the account User:Erik Warmelink), I won't accidently edit with that account. About that "100 freely-licensed images from his native Netherlands", I didn't, I haven't added 100 images (it's around 90) and many of those aren't from the Netherlands. Erik Warmelink (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See also #File deletion warning, that could remove 40 uploads. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@Wknight94:You just showed that drawing those ties has no impact on your survival here. But, anyway, if you wish to attack me, mentioning Category:Potočari would work much better. Erik Warmelink (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And let's not forget the blocks of 129.125.102.126 either. Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In re 39422872, not three, two (en.wikipedia, meta.wikimedia, though one year on nl.wikipedia is close enough to entirely; in fact, I will probably get banned there for writing that 2×2=4). The stuff above about 129.125.102.126 isn't boasting, I was just helping you find more of my accounts which are blocked. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

@Wsiegmund diff 22996389 certainly was out of line (though it was in response to an edit where you denied that oaks are trees) and it may explain why you see diff 39360235 as an attack based on your nationality. It wasn't, you asked for "an alternative to an indefinite block", I gave an alternative, Curtis Clark understood it (see #WASP below). First of all, I think that if y'all tried to answer in a foreign language, you would understand the problems of writing in a foreign language a bit better; that's the "any language but English" directed at you (and others who just demand that everyone speaks English; going as far as renaming categories to ambiguous names). Secondly, perhaps you would look at the subject from another point of view, because by writing in another language you think about it in another setting. Last, "until the time the USA is not murdering civilians" probably needs explaining, you said "I don't communicate well in any language other than English", well I don't communicate well in any language (period). For some subjects my Dutch is passable, for others my English, for some my Low Saxon; but seldom fluent. Low Saxon correlates with home, agriculture, and masonry; English with computers, linguistics, and the occupation of Iraq and Afhanistan; Dutch doesn't correlate that strongly (but see Potočari), perhaps it is starting to become my native language. Anyway, if I write in English, I am always reminded of the invasion of Iraq. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bitte, dann! Schreiben Sie nicht auf Englisch. Es scheint ganz einfach.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dat helpt weinig, dan zijn er maar weinig mensen die het kunnen lezen. Ik heb al eens aangeboden om Nederlands of Plat met iemand te schrijven. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think this diff justifies an indefinite block. Why do we allow editors to persistently spew racist, nationalistic, and political hatred? This is not the first time for this editor be the looks of things. Jehochman (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed the block be extended to indefinite at COM:ANU#Proposal to extend Warmerlink's block to indefinite. Wknight94 ^talk 21:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to give an indefinite block, it would be better to give it to User:Erik Warmelink, not to User:Erik Warmerlink. Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, AFBorchert, for diff 39411062. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That is, the vote is now at COM:ANU#Proposal to extend Warmelink's block to indefinite. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• A nice example of selective quoting, compare

  http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20100508092541&limit=28&contribs=user&target=Erik+Warmelink&namespace=6

  http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20100508092540&limit=26&contribs=user&target=Erik+Warmelink&namespace=6

  --Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How does that change anything? You still intentionally moved a bunch of files into a red link category, where no one would ever find them to fix them. At least move them into Category:Guns or something where they would have some chance of being correctly categorized. Wknight94 ^talk 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

They were in category:guns (and category:colt). Category:python is a hidden disambiguation category. Wellbehaved bots don't drool into such categories. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Then just remove them from the wrong category. Why put on such a show? You used that much time for your little joke - it would have taken just as much time to create the correct helpful category and put them in there instead. Wknight94 ^talk 16:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I repeat myself: "Wellbehaved bots don't drool into such categories", I didn't create the "correct" category because I don't share your fascination withknowledge of instruments of murder, it would take me more time. However, if/when user:dudubot starts uploading pictures of "colt amazon"s or something, I would use another capitalization. O yes, I won't because you are so much more efficient in handling that. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And do you know me? How would you know I have a "fascination with instruments of murder"? Wknight94 ^talk 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We haven't been introduced, as far as I know. And, indeed, that means I can't know that you have that fascination. The mere fact that you know more about the subject than I do, is insufficient to reach that conclusion. I know that the bullet chamber of a revolver "revolves", but that's about it; it is quite possible that someone knows more because they have forgotten less, or live in an environment where they can easily acquire more knowledge. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny, isn't it? You are pushing for an indefinite block and I am blocked, so you can't threaten and you have to talk. And guess what, without threats you get more. Think about it (or don't, I ain't your master). Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't know I have any knowledge whatsoever. Maybe I had to research to create that category at all. That is my problem with your behavior. You don't know many of the things you are saying about people. You are twisting words to make people you are in conflict with sound as horrible as possible. It is a terrible tactic and ruins the atmosphere here - which used to be very nice and quiet. If you want to keep pornographic images here - or you don't want to call them pornographic at all - or whatever your agenda is - that's fine. I don't care. I was here while the porn collection was grown, I'll be here if it is maintained, etc. But don't intentionally use my name near the word "murder" - don't use Wsiegmund's name near "terrorist" - don't use anyone's name near the term "murdering civilians"...... All the poisonous hateful words are coming from your keyboard, not mine - not Lar's - not Wsiegmund's... If you could co-exist with the rest of the community here without resorting to tearing everyone down, I would happily unblock you myself. But your behavior of late and your behavior at other projects makes that very hard to believe. Wknight94 ^talk 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I can know you have some knowledge: You can write English. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean? Wknight94 ^talk 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It means I refuted your "You can't know I have any knowledge whatsoever". It also means that I did not react to your command to censor my words. if you really want to talk about "poisonous hateful words", I don't think "apparent boasting" is friendly. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

New header

Sticking to the facts - Erik attacked and insulted me on my talk page and called my morals "retarded". No, not my statements, my morals which a core part of my being. Next he accused me vandalism[22], then this attack, next this bizarre accusation that myself and Twy7 are sockpuppets? Really. And there's more... an accusation of "sneaky" bad faith revisions of the DR nomination here. Please take appropriate long-term disciplinary action for Erik that will be beneficial to all parties involved. Thank you again, Stillwaterising (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am only allowed to discuss the block reason. Your attempt to make me use descriotive words about your behaviour (and thus give me an indef block, like you did to Roux) has failed. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WASP

El uso del término WASP me confunde. Para mí, significa "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant". Entiendo que la mayoría de los habitantes de los Países Bajos y sus alrededores son blancos, y la mayoría son protestantes. Ciertamente, los anglos y los sajones procedían de la misma población lingüística y étnica como los neerlandeses y alemanes bajos. Por supuesto, usted puede diferir de este en todos los aspectos, pero su uso del término parece mal dirigidas cuando esté prevista como un insulto. (He utilizado un lenguaje común a los países que asesinan a civiles y otros que no lo hacen.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Muy gracias, por desgracia, yo hablo poco español. Thanks for being so kind that you wrote your message in a foreign language. However, since you are not one of the people attacking me for lack of knowledge of English, it is quite unnecessary, you probably already know how hard it is to try to be both clear and kind in a foreign language.

To answer your question, I have hereditary melanin deficiency (but I don't suffer from it), I think I am Saxon (all 8 great-grandparents are from Overijssel) and I was raised protestant. "WASP morals" isn't intended as an insult, though I did intend to show my dislike of "our morals are better than yours". Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I am NOT a sockpuppets of ANY users. YOu can easily see by my distinct style of photography and my image meta data. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 11:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't even bother responding to such things unless brought to AN/U or Check User. Please read What is a troll? - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@Tyw7:Giving some context helps. If this is about diff 39341249 on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rear view.jpg: as far as I know, one can do something as per something, but not as as per someone, unless one is that someone. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether "as per someone" is grammatically correct, but in any case read it as "as per someone's comment". That turns it into the form "as per something", the "something" being "someone's comment". No need to jump to conclusions about identities. Lupo 07:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't jump to conclusions about identities, I only jumped to conclusions about language. See http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/asper.html and http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/per.html. Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Language is should not be the ONLY reason to assume sock puppetry. See their past edits/images taken. If they are similiar, or the same, than sock puppetry can be suspected. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

However, I do not assume sock puppetry, I only wrote you admitted you were a sock puppet of stillwaterising and you did write "{{vd}} as per stillwaterrising". Erik Warmelink (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That does not mean they admitted to be a sockpuppet, "as per stillwaterrising" is just them agreeing to Stillwaterising's reasoning/deletion reason. Bidgee (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/asper.html, and Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! does not have the excuse English isn't their first language. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your point is? Bidgee (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is Warmelink beating another premise to death. He is either unaware of the common usage of the word "per" here and at en.wp, or else he is once again choosing a terrible way to make some mysterious point. Saying one person is a sockpuppet of another because they used the word "per" is patently absurd and should be ignored. This is why Warmelink should be banned - because so much of what he says needs to be ignored, or else it causes extreme offense. Wknight94 ^talk 12:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please once try to attack me in another language? Perhaps that will make you understand how hard it is to express oneself in a language which isn't one's native language. But, as long as you try it in something resembling English, "premises" can't be beaten to death, however, they can be falsified. I did not say User:Tyw7 is a sockpuppet of user:Stillwaterising, if you read that into my words, US English and English have drifted apart a lot. O by the way, "as per". Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My point is, that y'all may expect that people whose native language isn't English will assume that people whose native language is English will at least try and write English; "as per" is at best obsolescent, and even in those few meanings it can't be used as User:Tyw7 tried to do. You insist that others use your language, while you don't speak other languages yourself. What was so bad about not forseeing Lar's warning by two hours, what was so bad about not knowing the two slang meanings? Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

See also:

1. RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972.

If those 23 images are deleted, we should also delete:

1. File:Ulrike Meinhof.jpg
2. File:Andreas Bernd Baader.jpg
3. File:Gudrun Ensslin.jpg
4. File:Holger Klaus Meins.jpg
5. File:Jan-Carl Raspe.jpg
6. File:Ilse Stachowiak.jpg
7. File:Klaus Jünschke.jpg
8. File:Ronald Augustin.jpg
9. File:Bernhard Braun.jpg
10. File:Ralf Reinders.jpg
11. File:Ingeborg Barz.jpg
12. File:Irmgard Möller.jpg
13. File:Brigitte Mohnhaupt.jpg
14. File:Axel Achterath.jpg
15. File:Katharina Hammerschmidt.jpg
16. File:Rosemarie Keser.jpg
17. File:Siegfried Hausner.jpg
18. File:Heinz Brockmann.jpg
19. File:Albert Fichter.jpg

--Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Soapbox

A search on commons for multi-national coalition effort to liberate the Iraqi people, eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and end the regime of Saddam Hussein gives 1,299 hits. Erik Warmelink (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of a week

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of a week for the following reason: {{{2}}}. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

User:Mattbuck blocked you for a week, and is to shy to tell it (s)he/itself. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)