Overleg gebruiker:A.Savin/Archive

Hallo A.Savin, en welkom op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia!

Welcome message in English

Hartelijk dank voor je belangstelling voor Wikipedia! We werken hier aan het ideaal van een vrij beschikbare, vrij bewerkbare, volledige en neutrale gemeenschapsencyclopedie. We waarderen het enorm als ook jij hieraan wilt bijdragen!

De Nederlandstalige Wikipedia is sinds 19 juni 2001 online en telt inmiddels 2.156.993 artikelen. In de loop van de jaren zijn er voor het schrijven of bewerken van artikelen en voor de onderlinge samenwerking een aantal uitgangspunten en richtlijnen geformuleerd. Neem die als nieuwkomer ter harte. Lees ook eerst even de informatie in dit venster voordat je aan de slag gaat. Geen van de richtlijnen heeft kracht van wet, want Wikipedia is en blijft vóór alles vrij bewerkbaar, maar een beetje houvast voordat je in het diepe springt kan nooit kwaad.

• De vijf pijlers van Wikipedia
  Uitgangspunten en richtlijnen in vijf regels
• Snelcursus
  Leer stap-voor-stap bewerken in een ogenblik
• Tips voor het schrijven van een goed artikel
  Slimme aanwijzingen van ervaren Wikipedianen
• Dingen die je beter niet kunt doen
  Veelgemaakte fouten en hoe je ze vermijdt
• Conventies en relevantie
  Nuttige hulp voor het schrijven van een nieuw artikel
• Portaal:Hulp en beheer
  Algemene handleiding van Wikipedia
• Zandbak
  Voor het experimenteren met bewerken
• Helpdesk
  Voor al je vragen over Wikipedia en over zaken buiten Wikipedia
• Veelgestelde vragen
  Antwoorden op de meest gehoorde vragen
• Coachingsprogramma
  Een coach helpt je bij jouw eerste stappen op Wikipedia

Deze pagina, die nu op je scherm staat, is trouwens je persoonlijke overlegpagina, de plaats waar je berichten van andere Wikipedianen ontvangt en ze kunt beantwoorden. Iedere gebruiker heeft zo'n pagina. Wil je een nieuw overleg met iemand anders beginnen, dan kan dat dus op zijn of haar overlegpagina. Sluit je bijdragen op overlegpagina's altijd af met vier tildes, dus zo: ~~~~. Een druk op de handtekeningknop (zie afbeelding) heeft hetzelfde effect: je bericht wordt automatisch ondertekend met je gebruikersnaam en de datum en tijd waarop je je boodschap voltooide. Versturen doe je met de knop "Wijzigingen publiceren".

• Grashoofd 3 dec 2010 23:08 (CET)

Afbeeldingen

U vervangt zomaar zonder toelichting of reden of uitleg goede mooie afbeeldingen door anderen die u zelf heeft gemaakt. Graag dit niet zomaar doen maar eerst aangeven waarom dat nodig mocht zijn op de overlegpagina van het betreffende artikel en pas bij consensus bij de inhoudelijk bijdragers er aan dit doen. Dank voor uw begrip. MoiraMoira _overleg 17 okt 2016 19:19 (CEST)

@MoiraMoira:

1) I don't know Dutch language. You can write in Englisch / Sie können schreiben auf Deutsch.

2) Please assume good faith. I only replace images by those of significantly better quality. I doubt there is any rule that prohibits such replacements without prior discussion.

3) Please do not edit war.

Thanks --A.Savin (overleg) 17 okt 2016 19:23 (CEST)

In English: You replace without good reason standing good images with others you made yourself. Please do not do so but confer first with contributors to the article here on the talk page of the article and only act when consensus is there. Thank you for your understanding. MoiraMoira _overleg 17 okt 2016 19:27 (CEST)

Ps accusations of editwarring are false. I reverted your first change, immediately placed a comment on the talk page of that article since I saw not only you had been picture pushing there and now when I see the second change in the recent changes immediately notify you about proper procedure.

@MoiraMoira: I repeat: Please assume good faith. Do you know the Wiki principle? Since when every change on article has to be discussed in advance? Can you show me any rule which says "confer first with contributors to the article here on the talk page of the article and only act when consensus is there"? Thanks. --A.Savin (overleg) 17 okt 2016 19:31 (CEST)

Of course I assume good faith but just ask you to respect fellow contributors of good pictures which you replace by also nice pictures made by yourself. Sometimes there is place for more pictures or a gallery can be started as an alternative. I ask you to not automatically replace matters with your own pictures but respect others and confer with them. MoiraMoira _overleg 17 okt 2016 20:02 (CEST)

MoiraMoira... We have the VJVEGJG principle (Feel free and go ahead). This user replaces good images with pictures of good quality. Since when is that forbidden?  Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  17 okt 2016 20:14 (CEST)

(edit conflict) @MoiraMoira: 1) you still didn't provide any rule that requires me to discuss replacements of photos in advance. 2) if my replacements are disrespectful (which is really new for me), then so are your reverts. --A.Savin (overleg) 17 okt 2016 20:15 (CEST)

I've checked one of your replacements a church. Can you explain me what's wrong with the old picture? Why does it have to be replaced. It isn't a bad quality image. So the only valid reason I can think of is that it's the wrong church. If not, than you are replacing something that isn't wrong by another photo that doesn't make it an improvement. That violates WP:BTNI and then it's normal your edits are reverted. Mbch331 (Overleg) 17 okt 2016 21:08 (CEST)

Mbch331 Please see Commons:COM:Image guidelines. Some Dutch speakers who active on Commons evaluation (Famberhorst, Michielverbeek), may want to confirm that these files do not meet the IG [1] [2] [3] whereas the following ones do: [4] [5] [6]. --A.Savin (overleg) 17 okt 2016 22:26 (CEST)

MoiraMoira Could you please reply? 1) you still didn't provide any rule that requires me to discuss replacements of photos in advance. 2) if my replacements are disrespectful (which is really new for me), then so are your reverts. --A.Savin (overleg) 17 okt 2016 22:26 (CEST). I confirm that those mentioned photos are far from Q1level. --Michielverbeek (overleg) 18 okt 2016 19:32 (CEST)

A.Savin asked me to intermediate at my talk page. At my talk page I did some explaining regarding the guideline bij twijfel niet inhalen and why users are a bit careful when it comes to people replacing photographs with their own.

A.Savin is one of the most respected admins at Wikimedia Commons and he is one of our top photographers. I know that he has no bad or selfish intentions.

Since Mbch mentions one edit in specific I will try to explain why such edits are in fact an improvement. The old photograph was shot under bad lightening conditions and needs a perspective correction plus it has an ugly black frame surrounding the edges. Also, the photographer used a wrong angle when shooting this photograph. This is merely a snapshot. The photograph taken by A.Savin on the other had has been shot using a perfect angle, good lightning conditions and the colours are more genuine.

I know we had bad experiences with people misusing Wikipedia for selfish purposes or used Wikipedia to fight their silly COA- and flagwars but A.Savin is nothing like that. Please be a little nicer to him and asking someone to discuss his edits up front when he doesn't speak Dutch is not really realistic. Natuur12 (overleg) 17 okt 2016 21:35 (CEST)

Dear Savin, I have looked at your pictures, they are wonderful. I have talked with some local people here who contribute to these articles and pointed them to the talk pages. I am sure the best picture will be used when people are connected and know what is happening and why. But seeing pictures changed several times all by non nl-wiki accounts is not making some one happy I am sure you must understand this. The "rule" is WP:BTNI by the way but I am sure people are willing to confer with you and things will be fine. Kind regards, MoiraMoira _overleg 18 okt 2016 19:19 (CEST).

Nice to hear because I have had similar kind of problems, so I have started to become much more careful with replacing photos --Michielverbeek (overleg) 18 okt 2016 19:32 (CEST)

Yes the essence is telling why you replace, what you replace and that was lacking alas so it caused confusion here. Kind regards, MoiraMoira _overleg 18 okt 2016 19:39 (CEST)

User:MoiraMoira, first, my name is not Savin but A.Savin, please accept it. Second, from what I understand, this permanently cited "Dutch-wiki-only" rule "WP:BTNI" is about the kind of edits I myself would call "timewasting" (with other words, neither vandalism nor a real improvement, just sort of editcount pushing, as Natuur12 already kindly explained to me on his talk page). I'm really curious in which way my replacements of old pictures that do not meet Image guidelines and so never have a chance to become Quality Images, by those meeting the Image Guidelines AND at the same time representing the same motif and same visual information for the user, are to be considered "neither vandalism nor improvement", "timewasting", and similar. They ARE in at least 99% of the cases an improvement (and the confirmation therefor is, that similar things like now in NL wiki almost never happen to me although I do replacements in several wikis, even in small ones; moreover, some people explicitly say "thank you") and even here on NL wiki some people confirmed it; so, why should I please wait for "permission" by certain editors, maybe just because they are authors of these articles? Again, where is such a rule? Can you please explain? 3) I already mentioned your behaviour on my Commons talk page and pinged you, which you might not have noticed though. Please explain, why you not only revert my replacements, but also other non-controversial improvements like here? It is highly problematic for any more or less experienced user, and let alone for a sysop! And 4) Please explain: how do you actually come to the conclusion that I am "non nl-wiki account"? Of course I am (also) an NL wiki account, as the account is attached to all my other accounts of WMF projects; the only difference is a) NL is not my homewiki, b) I don't speak Dutch and so I cannot write articles and do maintenance work here, even if I wanted; but surely en:WP:AGF does apply also for users who merely do edits that not require any knowledge of this wiki's language. --A.Savin (overleg) 18 okt 2016 19:48 (CEST)

My apologies for mis spelling your user name. Be assured your contributions are valued here and be assured when you use the edit summary and explain what you do and why in english all will be fine. Kind regards, MoiraMoira _overleg 18 okt 2016 19:51 (CEST)

User:MoiraMoira, as you (again) preferred not to respond on most points stated above, I assume you have nothing to add. Given that, could you please be so kind and undo your yesterday's reverts of my edits, especially those one where you also removed the geocode? Thanks. --A.Savin (overleg) 18 okt 2016 20:01 (CEST)

U vervangt zomaar goede mooie afbeeldingen, graag dit niet zomaar doen maar eerst aangeven waarom dat nodig mocht zijn op de overlegpagina van het betreffende artikel en pas bij consensus bij de inhoudelijk bijdragers er aan dit doen. Dank voor uw begrip. Rode raaf (overleg) 9 apr 2018 14:41 (CEST)

Gaarne stoppen met uw ongewenste bewerkingen AUB. Rode raaf (overleg) 9 apr 2018 14:43 (CEST)

Ter informatie: Ik heb een blokverzoek tegen u ingediend. Rode raaf (overleg) 9 apr 2018 14:50 (CEST)

Heb je A.Savin ook vertelt dat jij jouw eigen foto's aan het beschermen bent? Did you tell A.Savin that you are protecting your own photos? The Banner Overleg 9 apr 2018 15:56 (CEST)

Unblock request

@Wikiklaas: You blocked me 1 day for editwar, but obvously you overlooked the fact that an editwar always takes at least two people, so in this case you have at least to block Rode raaf too. Would you please do it? Thanks. --A.Savin (overleg) 9 apr 2018 20:02 (CEST)

@Wikiklaas: Any response? --A.Savin (overleg) 9 apr 2018 20:47 (CEST)

It seems a much better idea to me that you just add Photographs on articles talk-pages, so that users on NLWP, can decide to use them or not. NLWP decides which photographs are used in articles we write.

So maybe a good idea to not replace images on NLWP again, but to suggest them on talk-pages Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  9 apr 2018 20:53 (CEST)

We are not talking about what I have to do in future, but what is the current situation. Once again: Yes there was an editwar between me and Rode raaf, but I have been blocked and Rode raaf not. Can Wikiklaas explain, why? --A.Savin (overleg) 9 apr 2018 21:11 (CEST)

Btw, the Wiki Principle and AGF are valid in all WMF projects -- regardless if Dutch Wikipedia, English Wikisource or Suahili Wikivoyage. "NLWP decides which photographs are used in articles we write"... I hope Jimbo is not reading what you just said, Rodejong. "Who" is actually NLWP? Dou you have a President, a dictator who decides what pictures come in and what not? "La Wikipédia, c'est moi", WOW, I've been 13 (in words: thirteen) years around and rarely seen such a nonsense. --A.Savin (overleg) 9 apr 2018 21:11 (CEST)

That's your opinion. But each Wikipedia community makes their own set of rules and guidelines, as well as what we wish in articles. In case of these two images of yours, it's found that - yes the resolution was better, but the composition not. In this case Rode raaf was defending his/her image(s). So when you replace the image again, you get warned. You didn't respond but just keep replacing the image. I guess that when you are the one who doesn't communicate, you get blocked. Rode raaf tried to cummunicate, so did his/her best to solve the problem, and therefor didn't get blocked.

Again, consensus is sought through the local community, not through Wikimedia on which images are used. Furthermore... promoting your own images and removing others' is not appreciated.  Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  9 apr 2018 21:27 (CEST)

This is a lie, the both images I tried to replace are not by me. Btw, currently they are in both articles again. On my userpage, you can see the three languages in which I am able to communicate and Dutch language is not one of those. Can I please have an explanation from Wikiklaas? --A.Savin (overleg) 9 apr 2018 21:35 (CEST)

• 
  sharp; 3.975×5.962 pixels
• 
  sharp; 375×500

Beste A.Savin, ik blokkeerde je niet slechts voor het voeren van een bewerkingsoorlog. Dat was hooguit de aanleiding waardoor het werkelijke probleem zichtbaar werd.

Het probleem hier is dat je op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia afbeeldingen vervangt op basis van het criterium voor een goede foto dat in Wikimedia Commons is geformuleerd. Maar in een artikel op een Wikipedia-project wordt de keuze van een foto maar voor een klein deel bepaald door de beeldkwaliteit zoals geformuleerd in de Commons guideline. Als voorbeeld het geval van Hendrickje Stoffels; de beide betrokken afbeeldingen staan hierboven. Het is duidelijk dat de resolutie van de linker (3.975×5.962) veel hoger is dan die van de rechter (375×500), en omdat ze beide scherp zijn is dus volgens Commons de linker foto veel beter. Maar door het gekozen standpunt is de compositie van de rechter foto veel rustiger dan die van de linker, waar in de achtergrond allerlei rommelige en storende details te zien zijn. De keuze voor de afbeelding in lage resolutie is er dus ook een voor een rustige afbeelding. Daaraan ga je voorbij als je alleen de Commonsgids maar volgt. Je kunt een gids of richtlijn die op Commons wordt gebruikt niet zomaar als argument aanvoeren voor het vervangen van een afbeelding bij een artikel, en in jouw geval was het zelfs het enige argument dat je had. Je was, met andere woorden, bezig om bewerkingen te beargumenteren met de criteria van Commons, op een project dat andere mores heeft en andere eisen stelt dan Commons. Dat is volgens mij in Wikimedia-termen bad behaviour.

Tweede probleem is dat je niet in het Nederlands kunt communiceren, dus je maakt het voor sommige gebruikers volstrekt onmogelijk om de problemen met je te bespreken. Als je met je bewerkingen weerstand oproept in een project waarin je niet goed kunt communiceren, en je ziet dat je bewerkingen worden teruggedraaid, dan doe je er goed aan er geen bewerkingsoorlog over te beginnen, maar onmiddellijk de overlegpagina op te zoeken, en te vragen of er iemand is die er in een taal die je beiden spreekt met je over wil overleggen. Dat deed je niet: je draaide terug, en nogmaals en nogmaals. En het was niet de eerste keer dat je met dit bewerkingsgedrag problemen veroorzaakte. Hierboven staat een eerdere discussie waarin exact hetzelfde aan de hand was. Als je de redenen om niet akkoord te gaan met jouw wensen niet begrijpt omdat je de taal van het project niet begrijpt, leg je er dan bij neer. Jij ging echter op ramkoers liggen door een bewerkingsoorlog te voeren. Je bent niet de eerste anderstalige gebruiker die problemen veroorzaakt door hardnekkig een eigen keus voor afbeeldingen door te blijven drukken. Andere halsstarrige gebruikers werden voor hetzelfde gedrag geblokkeerd, uiteindelijk soms zelfs indefinitely.

De blokkering van een dag is een signaal: doe dit niet weer! De editwar had in dit geval naar mijn stellige overtuiging echt maar één veroorzaker, en het is logisch dat er dus maar één gebruiker geblokkeerd werd. Je verzoek om ook Rode Raaf te blokkeren vind ik ongepast, en ik neem het niet in overweging. WIKIKLAAS overleg 9 apr 2018 22:02 (CEST)

Tsja, als je Nederlands niet beheerst hoe kun je dan beweren dat BTNI niet van toepassing is? Voortaan beter maar geen afbeeldingen meer vervangen op nl-wiki. - Robotje (overleg) 9 apr 2018 22:14 (CEST)

@Wikiklaas: As I already wrote, there are as much as three languages I may communicate in, and writing to me in any other doesn't make much sense. From what GoogleTranslate can provide, there seems to be kind of an agreement (?) in Dutch WP that foreign users have some lesser right here on this wiki and always need to ask a discussion, even when acting in good faith and it's only a replacement of photo which actually doesn't require language skills. This is a very embarassing, xenophobic attitude. And you are treatening to block me again, possibly even indef. Apparently, WP:AGF is rubbish here. Well, of course I will not stop replacing photo where I consider it appropriate, you may of course block me again and again, but this abuse of sysop rights I'm not going to tolerate all the time, and reserve me the right to open a steward complaint on Meta. --A.Savin (overleg) 9 apr 2018 22:20 (CEST)

The best advise I can give you is to open a steward complaint right away, and point them at your talk page here for an explanation of the situation. I'll be glad to answer any questrions that may rise in the process. WIKIKLAAS overleg 9 apr 2018 22:29 (CEST)

I would like to point out that Cross-Wiki-spamming (In case of promoting images on more than 3 or 4 wiki's.) leads to Global Locks. Not only tekstwise, but also imagewise. Commons users do not have more rights than users who write tekst. So I applaude you when you open a Steward Ticket, as it will only backfire on yourself.  Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  9 apr 2018 22:33 (CEST)

@Rodejong: I am not spamming, I am contributing free content. Your treatments are even more ridiculous than this block. --A.Savin (overleg) 9 apr 2018 22:36 (CEST)

Reporting my images for copyright issues - that is really childish!  Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  9 apr 2018 22:41 (CEST)

So are your treatments. --A.Savin (overleg) 9 apr 2018 22:46 (CEST)

FYI]  Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  9 apr 2018 22:59 (CEST)

Hoi A.Savin, je maakt in je laatste edit duidelijk misbruik van de mogelijkheid om deze pagina tijdens je blok te mogen bewerken voor overleg over je blok. Hoe jij denkt over het gedrag van Rodejong gaat totaal niet over jouw huidige blok. Als je daarmee doorgaat is de kans groot dat de mogelijkheid om deze pagina te kunnen bewerken tijdens je blok wordt ingetrokken. - Robotje (overleg) 9 apr 2018 23:11 (CEST)

Tsja, als je Nederlands niet beheerst hoe kun je dan beweren dat BTNI niet van toepassing is? Voortaan beter maar geen afbeeldingen meer vervangen op nl-wiki. - Robotje (overleg) 9 apr 2018 22:14 (CEST)

Dear A.Savin, your reaction "As I already wrote, there are as much as three languages I may communicate in, and writing to me in any other doesn't make much sense" perfectly illustrates the problem. You try to contribute to the Dutch Wikipedia, but if your edits cause confusion or if they upset other users, you cannot take part in a meaningful discussion. It can't be too much of a problem to run my text through an automatic translator. You would at least have got a feal as to what I tried to tell you. But since you're too lazy or stubborn to do it yourself, I'll give it a go:

translation start

Dear A.Savin, I did not just block you for edit warring. That was at best what gave away the real problem we have at hand here.

The problem is you replacing pictures on the Dutch Wikipedia guided by the criteria for good quality images as formulated on Wikimedia Commons. But in an article on any Wikipedia project, the quality as set out in the Commons guideline is of only little importance compared to other considerations when choosing images. Lets take the case of Hendrickje Stoffels as an example. Both images concerned are shown above. The resolution of the left one (3.975×5.962) is clearly much higher than the right one's (375×500), and since both images are sharp, according to Commons the left one is "much better" than the right one. But because of the differences in perspective, the composition of the right one is quite calm, while the left one has messy and disturbing details in the background. The choice for the image in low resolution is therefore also one for a quiet image. You totally ignore that if you only follow the Commons guideline. You cannot just use a Commons guideline as an argument for replacing an image in an article on a totally different project. And in your case, it even was the only argument you gave. To put it simple, you were imposing a Commons guideline upon another project for which the guideline was not formulated. Every Wikipedia has its own customs, and users have their own considerations when it comes to the choice of an image. You only had one. In Wikimedia terms, not considering the local requirements of the project you want to contribute to is called "bad practice".

The second problem, immediately linked to the first, is you're unable to discuss your edits in Dutch, so you make it impossible for some users to discuss any problems with you. If your contributions evoke resistance while you can't discuss your edits, and you notice your edits are reversed, the worst thing to do of course is to start an edit war. A wise thing to do would be to go to a talk page and to ask someone who is able to write in a language you're both fluent in, to discuss your wishes and the problems they evoke. That's not what you did. You just reverted other edits. And again and again, imposing your own view upon other editors, not listening to their concerns. It was not the first time you acted this way. At the top of this page there's another discussion that was raised when you tried to have your own way with placing images in articles without understanding the context. If you don't understand other editors' concerns because you can't communicate with them, good practice would be to let it go. You however set out on a collision course, and chose to initiate an edit war. You're not the first foreign language contributor causing problems by stubbornly keeping to their own choice of images. Other obstinate users were blocked for the same behaviour, some eventually even indefinitely.

This one day block is a signal. Don't go on like this. You should be able to discuss every edit you make, and take notice of the local habits. Every image has a context and a purpose. The Commons guideline is by far not the most important consideration for choosing an image. I'm convinced the edit war is to blame solely on you, so logically only you were blocked. It doesn't matter if the majority of users appears to have the same preference for an image as you did: they took part in a discussion you were not even able to take part in. It has nothing to do with xenophobia, as you stated elsewhere. It's refusing to properly listening to other users' arguments. I feel your request to also block Rode Raaf is inappropriate, and I won't consider it. WIKIKLAAS overleg 9 apr 2018 22:02 (CEST)

translation end

There you are. WIKIKLAAS overleg 10 apr 2018 03:44 (CEST)

Volgens mij is de vertaalmachine hem niet onbekend (a propos, met een ongepaste vergelijking naar MoiraMoira) Het is pure onwil, je kan de imperfectie van een vertaalmachine voor lief nemen in zo'n situatie. Globaal zal iedere gebruiker tegen dezelfde "problemen" aanlopen die een vreemde taal niet machtig is. Het zou deze gebruiker trouwens sieren om open kaart te spelen. Hij schreef: "the both images I tried to replace are not by me", waardoor ik mij op mijn beurt afvraag wat dan precies de noodzaak van herplaatsen was, smaken verschillen. Daarover kan altijd gediscussieerd worden. Dat iemand die moderator is bij Commons is zich klaarblijkelijk ineens op een lemma stort (over een dorpje met slechts 1500 inwoners!) op Nederlandstalige versie van Wikipedia, begrijp ik niet. Daarbij keer op keer bewerkingen ongedaan maakt o.v.v. van: "do not editwar against several people" of "your editwar is childish and irrelevant', nádat hij werd verzocht tot overleg om consensus. Niet bepaald constructieve gedrag van iemand die al wat langer meedraait. Sterker nog; het is een gebrek van AGF, want overtuigt zijn een "goede bewerking" te doen en vinden dat je niet schuldig bent aan een bewerkingsoorlog is geen excuus. Daarbij blijkt tevens de wens te bestaan om qua afbeeldingenbeleid de externe richtlijnen van Commons globaal op te leggen? Wat is nu de echte reden? Waarom zou je andermans foto persé willen doordrukken? Het lijkt pure onwil/arrogantie om de in het Nederlands gestelde vragen op de Nederlandstalige wikipedia te negeren tijdens die herhaaldelijke terugdraaihandelingen. De beleefdheid opbrengen om minstens een bescheiden reactie te geven zoals: "Ik spreek je taal niet, is het een probleem voor je om in het Engels te reageren?" is kennelijk al teveel moeite. Tenzij er opzet in het spel was? Dan wordt er nog een schepje bovenop gedaan door te stellen dat buitenlandse gebruikers minder rechten zouden hebben, dat er hier een vernederende xenofobische mentalitiet heerst. Hoe denkt A. Savin het communicatie probleem op te lossen als er gebruikers op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia blijken te zijn die geen Russisch, Duits of Engels kunnen? Zolang je bewerkingen blijft maken die weerstand kunnen oproepen, bestaat er een kans dat anderen met je wensen te overleggen. Ik kan me als serieuze gebruiker met de beste wil van de wereld niet voorstellen waar ik de motivatie vandaan moet halen om op een anderstalige Wikipedia probeer mijn zin door te drukken. Alsof ik ineens op Büsdorf mijn foto's daar persé wil zien? Als iemand op de Russische, Duitse of Engelse Wikipedia zijn zin door wil drijven, in het Nederlands aangesproken wenst te worden, aangeboden overleg negeert, terugdraait o.v.v. stekelige opmerkingen, zal diegene hetzelfde lot ten deel vallen. Rode raaf (overleg) 10 apr 2018 10:47 (CEST)

Jongens en meisjes, zijn jullie nu niet een heel klein beetje bezig met jezelf en NLWP belachelijk te maken? The Banner Overleg 10 apr 2018 16:48 (CEST)

Rationale

Let me try to give a clear picture of what goes wrong here. Once again I'll first use an example.

Some days ago I came upon this version of our article on Eristalis arbustorum, a hover fly. The picture in the infobox is dull, the fly itself is much too dark. I was convinced better pictures had been uploaded to Commons since the time this one was selected. I was right. So in this edit I removed the old photograph of a female, and added two much clearer pictures of a male and a female. But before I did that, I had read the entire text of the article and discovered that two references to the old picture were made. Therefore in this edit I already changed the text such that I could later change the picture without the negative consequence of disrupting the link between the text and the image. I was able to do that because I understand every word of the content of the article. As has become very clear from your statement "As I already wrote, there are as much as three languages I may communicate in, and writing to me in any other doesn't make much sense", you're not planning to even try to understand the context in which the images figure. You would not have been able to replace the images in the same meaningful way as I did. And that goes for every time you replace an image by another one of your choice. That's unacceptable.

Users select images to illustrate an article. Experienced users will not just select a nice or high quality picture; they will select an image that is an example to something stated in the content. You will never be aware of the link that is thus created between text and image because you outright refuse to read a Dutch text. You made it absolutely clear that you're not even willing to give it a try.

There can be a multitude of reasons why users will not accept a replacement of an image by you. As you can't discuss you edits in Dutch, some users will have no other possibility to disagree with you but to reverse your edit. Assuming good faith with your Dutch colleagues, you can expect to have removed an image that was meaningful in a way you did not perceive: an image that had a particular perspective, an image that fitted in a series of other images, an image showing a detail not visible in the replacement, and so on... There is absolutely no reason to expect bad faith, like xenophobia, protectionism, plain rudeness and the like. While you demand of others to treat everything you do as good faith contributions, you immediately assume bad faith when one of your edits is reversed. Again, that's unacceptable.

We cannot have users here who replace images only adhering to a guideline formulated on another project, and rudely neglecting the context in which the images figure. That's disruptive editing. We cannot have users here who are unwilling or unable to discuss their wishes but instead resort to edit wars if they can't have their way. We cannot have users here who demand to be treated based on good faith but refuse to assume good faith in the users who most deserve it.

Overlooking all of this, I can see no other way for you to make meanigful contributions but to propose images you think may better fit the need of an article on the corresponding talk page. If you want to propose multiple images, you could place thumbnails or links on your own talk page, and write some message about it at the village pump. If you kindly ask people to forgive you for writing in English or German, there will be enough users to have a look at it. But there must come an end to you replacing images at your own free will. Jimmy Wales never intended to condone ill informed edits when he stated Wikipedia should be free for anyone to edit. WIKIKLAAS overleg 10 apr 2018 21:39 (CEST)

Exactly my point of view, just much better explained  Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  10 apr 2018 22:11 (CEST)

I only replace images, when there is added value, that is, the motif is mostly the same, sometimes even more meaningful, and the technical features are much better. I don't replace images, when I had to modify the caption or otherwise related content in a language I cannot speak. In this edit, one of both for which I was blocked, each caption likewise apply for both pictures. In the current version, the photos in the end have been replaced and it seems perfectly fine for all. You can remind me of my missing Dutch knowledge as long as you want, but by now the ONLY guideline that all the people managed to show me and which I allegedly violated is WP:BTNI. But I didn't violate BTNI because what I did was an improvement. If I ever replaced somewhere in NL wiki a picture and left a caption uncorrected whereas it should have been corrected, then I did it not on purpose and I'm sorry for that; but in both articles for which I had been blocked yesterday there was definitely no disruption: both edits [7] [8] didn't require to change anything in the text, and in both cases there is consensus for the new photos, because they are definitely technically better. --A.Savin (overleg) 10 apr 2018 22:12 (CEST)

In fact, Wikiklaas, you are rewarding the edit warring by Rode Raaf, who was protecting his own photos. The Banner Overleg 10 apr 2018 22:23 (CEST)

Ja hoor, "But I didn't violate BTNI because what I did was an improvement." Dan heb je BTNI duidelijk niet begrepen. Kan natuurlijk gebeuren als je geen Nederlands begrijpt, maar dan is het toch echt beter om voortaan geen afbeeldingen te vervangen op nl-wiki. - Robotje (overleg) 10 apr 2018 23:55 (CEST)

A quotation from WP:BTNI: "De ene goede variant door de andere goede variant vervangen is geen verbetering of verslechtering, maar een neutrale bewerking. Dergelijke bewerkingen zijn ongewenst, omdat ze vaak leiden tot irritatie en aldus conflicten" (GoogleTranslate: "Replacing one good variant with the other good variant is no improvement or deterioration, but a neutral operation. Such operations are undesirable because they often cause irritation and can thus cause conflicts"). Well, I see nothing wrong there, as I replaced not "one good variant with the other" but rather "one bad variant with the good", and the best evidence for that is, that both pictures are now in the current version of both articles. For how stupid are you guys actually deeming me? By now, not a single guideline that I shall have violated is presented, except your BTNI and that is getting really boring. --A.Savin (overleg) 11 apr 2018 01:37 (CEST)

You did violate BTNI. Let me tell you why I think so:

In this version : 1 you see 5 images, the first 4 have lots of blue sky and are calm, and the fifth is of a house. Then your revison 2 you change the images that show grey sky (church) and Henrickje with a noisy background. The whole setting of the gallery changes for the worse. Now it's not a calm collection anymore. So, your edit violates our BTNI-rule.

You only focus on 1 or 2 images, but we have to look at the whole article. The context the images are placed in, etc. You might seem to think that us talking BTNI is boring, but we actually value this norm. And again, you focus only on the technical quality. But that is not the only criteria, as I explained!

As Robotje says... please don't replace images on Wikipedia anymore if the images are totally different. It's better for you to suggest images n the articles talk-page, as I suggested already in my first answer above. You don't understand Dutch, you don't understand half of what we write to you in Dutch. It's better to ask for help in the future of people who are willing to help you, if you ask them nicely in De Kroeg (our Village Pump).  Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  11 apr 2018 01:51 (CEST)

Yesterday you failed to explain which rule I shall have had violated on Commons and how the three images nominated for deletion are not subject to deletion. And now you again failed to explain anything because it's a repetition of what I had to read all the time. Once again, exclusively for you in bold: There is consensus for the new photos on Wikipedia:De kroeg#Foto, there is consensus in both articles as they have now been added to the articles (not by me) and are being used and undisputed. And when there is now consensus for these photos, what is then wrong with my actions? Let me remind you that I tried to add exactly the same photos in the article which are now consensus and are being used there. Nothing more. Your argumentation today is as ridiculous as your argumentation as of yesterday. --A.Savin (overleg) 11 apr 2018 02:11 (CEST)

No need to lie! You did not add but you replaced two pictures.

Both images were added by another user so that both of you would stop deleting each others edits. That is not consensus, that is a compromise!

What is shocking to me is that you as admin refuse to give a good example. Why do I say that? Well, as you write disturbing comments here: link to your talkpage on commons

No need to lie, as wikipedia remembers all and in this statement of yours in English one can clearly see that you are considering my activities as spam and threatening with possible WMF global lock for spam. To hide it, you have to request one of your sysop friends on NL to remove and revdelete your comment. Maybe you are unaware of that, but Wikipedia (no matter in what language) is, from its beginnings, a project that anyone may edit. No registration is necessary, no permission by an other user, a sysop or "redactors" or whatever, that's a basic difference to a magazine or a printed encyclopedia, just as example. Should there in NL wikipedia be some rule that bypasses this basic principle, it's null and void and sysops who enforce it with censorship and punitive blocks are to be desysopped and blocked to prevent further damage they cause. I will of course not stop replacing pictures where I consider it an added value, though due to harassment and wikihounding by your sysop friends I will more often need to use disposable sockpuppets for that. NL wiki may block me again and again, but I will continue to stand up for my right to edit in good faith, so the next step would be then a steward complaint on Meta. And your warnings about my global lock as spammer you can put yourself somewhere. I'm not a spammer, I'm a contributor of free content for 13 years now, and when some power-seeking gameplayers don't understand that, it's solely their own problem, not mine. --A.Savin 17:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

So not only you admit that you have used sockpuppets, but you are planning to do so more often in the future. I find this very desturbing, and I wonder what other admins would think of that.  Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  11 apr 2018 03:10 (CEST)

No, he is just saying that he is sick of your provocations and unrealistic reasoning. And that Wikipedia is not censored, although you, Wikiklaas and Rode Raaf are just doing that. Wikipedia claims that everyone can edit, so why are you three trying to revoke that right? The Banner Overleg 11 apr 2018 06:54 (CEST)

Ik heb niet gezegd dat hij geen foto's mag vervangen. Ik heb gezegd dat hij dat beter niet kan doen, als het gaat om vervanging van foto's die qua compositie geheel anders zijn. Tegen een foto met zelfde compositie, maar in betere qualiteit, zul je mij niet zien protesteren. Dacht dat ik dat wel duidelijk had gemaakt.

Ik vind het ook onbegrijpelijk dat je een admin die niet vies is van sokpoppen blijkbaar wilt verdedigen. Maar goed, Het is wel goed met jullie. Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  11 apr 2018 09:36 (CEST)

Yes sir, so is the life. Where neither AGF nor Common sense work, there sockpuppets are your helpers. --A.Savin (overleg) 11 apr 2018 13:47 (CEST)

In general: if one can't read the context of an image (the text of the article) and one is incapable to perceive why a certain image was chosen, one should not replace it. Using only the "good quality picture" guideline as an argument while there can be so many other reasons for selecting an image, reasons you don't know of because you don't read Dutch and you will thus never be aware of a connection between text and image, you should refrain from interfearing with our images. Users who can understand the ins and outs of an article are very well capable of going to Commons themselves and see if images have become available that better fit the needs. I was made aware of you doing a wonderful job on Commons. Please direct your efforts to that project, and to projects where you understand the content. Mechanically replacing images because you found some "better quality" replacement was a most stupid thing to do. Selecting images is an intellectual process. It involves reading the context, something you can't. You probably never meant to be disruptive, but you were, acting the way you did. And that's apart from the edit wars. WIKIKLAAS overleg 13 apr 2018 12:23 (CEST)

You may threaten me and deem me stupid as much as you wish, but of course I'll reserve me the right to replace a photo where I find it useful. EOD --A.Savin (overleg) 13 apr 2018 14:42 (CEST)

Your atitude is not quite helpful... Will this lead you in the right direction? I doubt it. Saschaporsche (overleg) 13 apr 2018 16:00 (CEST)

The thing is that you're in no position to judge whether a replacement is useful or not, as I already set out with at least two examples. You keep emphasizing on your rights but not a single user has the "right" to make ill-informed alterations. WIKIKLAAS overleg 13 apr 2018 18:27 (CEST)

You demanded discussion here. Now you have discussion. Very strange to remove it then. It would have helped if you would have shown some comprehension, in stead of threatening to keep replacing pictures while you don't have a clue as to why the old ones were selected. I guess you would be outraged if some English speaking person were replacing Russian captions on Commons, introducing some unavoidable errors. Well, your actions produce the same effect here. WIKIKLAAS overleg 13 apr 2018 20:27 (CEST)

Archiveren

Hoi A.Savin, als je besluit om je overlegpagina te archiveren is het beter om bovenaan deze pagina een link naar het archief/de archieven te plaatsen. Met deze edit haalde je die link juist weg! Zet je die nog even terug? - Robotje (overleg) 14 apr 2018 08:18 (CEST)

I added the archive-link for you. Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  14 apr 2018 17:10 (CEST)

Sinds wanneer is dat verplicht? Vinvlugt (overleg) 14 apr 2018 20:35 (CEST)

Zie het als een "vrienden"dienst  Kind regards,   Rodejong   ^💬 Talk ^✉️ Email  ^📝 Edits  ^👀 Auth  🕘 →  14 apr 2018 21:33 (CEST)

Kappen nou

Graag direct kappen met het toevoegen van nieuwe foto's aan het artikel over de Kathedraal van de heilige Maria van Zion. Jouw foto's zijn niet beter dan de foto's die er al stonden. Je foto van de oude kathedraal vind ik niet mooier of beter. De bulten gras op de voorgrond leiden mij enorm af van het onderwerp. De originele foto is, hetzij misschien wat vervormd vanwege de groothoek beter in staat het onderwerp te laten zien. En ook al heeft de originele foto wat last van hard licht, jouw foto heeft een irritante schaduw van een boom op de voorgevel. De oude foto is dus niet slechter en geeft geen reden voor vervanging. De foto van de kapel van de Ark van het verbond is weliswaar nieuwer, maar laat eigenlijk hetzelfde onderwerp vanuit dezelfde hoek zien. Het maakt geen fluit uit dus om die te vervangen eigenlijk. Zou je in het vervolg gegronde redenen willen aangeven bij het vervangen van foto's en niet zomaar wat doen? Alvast dank. Brimz (overleg) 29 apr 2018 09:20 (CEST)