Hallo Fry1989, en welkom op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia!
Vlag van het Verenigd Koninkrijk 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 2.108.814 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.

Signature button.pngDeze 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".

Welcome! Flag of California.svg DimiTalen 17 mrt 2012 10:09 (CET)

Stop mashing around!Bewerken

If you dont know what you doing, dont do it. --Arch   overleg 21 feb 2014 02:59 (CET)

I know exactly what I'm doing. If you don't have a proper reason to revert, don't do it! Fry1989 (overleg) 21 feb 2014 03:19 (CET)
You dont. Its a wrong CoA. You are Canadian yes? If I'll replace the Canadian flag by a version with a pink coulour instead the requested red colour, nobody would accept that right? They will revert the change. Why replace a correct version (flag or CoA) for a wrong version? "Your" version has claws too far over the shield, thats against Dutch heraldic rules. You did not make an improvement. Others (including me) will revert such a error. By reverting over and over again you are starting once a editwar, dont do it. Arch   overleg 21 feb 2014 09:58 (CET)
Fry, please stop changing a correct CoA for an obvious wrong CoA. As Arch said: the claws of the supporters are way to far into the shield: which is not allowed according to the Dutch heraldic rules. The supporters are supposed to hold the shield, not to stand in front of it. Dqfn13 (overleg) 21 feb 2014 10:10 (CET)
Oh not this racist bullshit again of "I'm from here, I know better than ANYBODY not from here". If that's the best argument you can come up with for why you think the coat of arms is wrong, you have no valid arguments. And the only person starting an edit war is yourself, reverting me without explaining why and suggesting I "don't know what I'm doing". Fry1989 (overleg) 21 feb 2014 19:15 (CET)
I've explained why I've changed the CoA, as did Arch and Sir Iain. That you can't read a single word we've written is your problem. Dqfn13 (overleg) 21 feb 2014 19:43 (CET)
I'm speaking to Arch, who did NOT leave an explanation for their revert until the second time around just to accuse me of not knowing what I'm doing. I know exactly what I'm doing, I'm just doing something different than what Arch thinks I should, that doesn't mean I'm clueless. Obviously you're the one who isn't reading anything I've said, that I have link proof that you're wrong. Fry1989 (overleg) 21 feb 2014 20:41 (CET)
During this revert war you've never linked to prove you're undoing of what I did January 14th was correct. You didn't link on either three pages... Dqfn13 (overleg) 21 feb 2014 21:16 (CET)
"They did it too, so that makes it ok when I do it". Doesn't work in the real world and doesn't work in my world either. I just proved you are wrong, you can't excuse it. Arch reverted me without an explanation, and then started accusing me of not knowing what I'm doing. That's. Dqfn13 (overleg) 21 feb 2014 22:35 (CET) inexcusable. Fry1989 (overleg) 21 feb 2014 22:31 (CET)
If I were wrong: with what? Enlighten me. I've explained what I did, you never did so, not even in your first edit changing the CoA. So... what did I do wrong and why was your change correct? Dqfn13 (overleg) 21 feb 2014 22:35 (CET)
I have, you just don't get it. I don't enlighten the clueless, that's not my mission in life. Fry1989 (overleg) 21 feb 2014 22:48 (CET)
What ever, I'm done with you. This project is meant to exist by people working together... obviously you are here to place wrong coats of arms of certain people... have fun doing so. Don't bother reacting, as I've just stopped cooperating with you. Dqfn13 (overleg) 21 feb 2014 22:54 (CET)

VlaggenBewerken

Hallo u vervangt legitieme afbeeldingen. U doet dat zelfs zomaar in andermans overleg en gebruikersruimtes. Kunt u daar mee ophouden alstublieft? De afbeelding van de vlag van het eiland Man die er stond heb ik bekeken op commons en die is legitiem en valide en wat u plaatste was een zelfgemaakte vervanging enkel. Die heb ik teruggezet.   MoiraMoira overleg 6 jun 2014 08:22 (CEST)

Zoals je in de samenvatting kunt zien, wordt er een script gebruikt om de afbeeldingen te hernoemen. Hierbij kan geen naamruimte worden gekozen omdat een afbeelding overal hernoemd wordt. JurgenNL (overleg) 6 jun 2014 09:04 (CEST)
Hallo Fry, aangezien de vlag die je plaatste, objectief bezien, niet beter was dan de reeds aanwezige heb ik eerder vandaag al je bewerkingen i.v.m. met deze vervanging teruggedraaid. Het is zelfs aannemelijk dat jouw versie slechter was omdat je je voor jouw versie niet baseerde op bronnen maar op je eigen voorkeur. Je pleegde met andere woorden dus origineel onderzoek. Je bent eerder in een soortgelijk geval aangesproken in verband met de ongewenstheid van je bewerkingen (zie hierboven). Ik vertrouw er op dat dit de laatste keer was dat je een dergelijke actie uitvoert en dat je er voortaan van afziet om jouw eigen afbeeldingen te plaatsen ter vervanging van reeds aanwezige afbeeldingen waarvan niet is aangetoond dat deze slechter zijn. Ik hoop dat ik je hiermee voldoende heb geïnformeerd. Met vriendelijke groet, EvilFreD (overleg) 6 jun 2014 14:29 (CEST)
I work with image replacement for a variety of projects and I always have good reasons when I do so. There is absolutely no need to blanket revert all of my edits. I will leave any user pages alone but please do not revert my work unless there is a proper reason, not simply because you think I am "messing around". Fry1989 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 18:23 (CEST)
Uploading a different version of the image to commons is something they have to handle, but we've checked your version of the flag and found it not to be an improvement. According to the local rules, you should not replace the flag without proper discussion which version is better. After reaching consensus about replacing, you can please replace the flag. Not sooner. Mbch331 (Overleg) 6 jun 2014 18:32 (CEST)
You didn't check anything, or else you would have found that my file has sources and the other one does not. That means my flag is correct and the other is wrong! You're just reverting me because you can, not because I'm wrong. Fry1989 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 18:33 (CEST)
Kun je niet gewoon je eigen projectje beginnen? Peter b (overleg) 6 jun 2014 18:34 (CEST)
Severall users noticed the flag you placed is incorrect. The flag that you replaced is an accurate and correct flag: meaning there is now a wrong flag on hundreds of thousands of pages. Dqfn13 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 18:37 (CEST)
It is not incorrect, I have sources for how the triskelion is supposed to centered on the flag! You are making flase accusations without understanding the situation. Fry1989 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 18:38 (CEST)
Then give us those sources! Instead of claiming you have them: provice them. Because I have sources your claim is incorrect... Dqfn13 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 18:42 (CEST)
If you have such sources you can post them on the file's talk page on Commons, instead of accusing me of bad faith. Fry1989 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 18:45 (CEST)
Where did I write I don't trust you, or where did I write I think you don't have sources? I mearly ask you: show us your sources and show us you are right. Dqfn13 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 18:58 (CEST)
Above in the previous discussion you said that "This project is meant to exist by people working together... obviously you are here to place wrong coats of arms of certain people" which is a bad faith accusation, and you also accuse me here of putting a wrong image on "hundreds of thousands" of pages, a hyperbolic statement considering both images collectively are only used on about 20,000 pages. Fry1989 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 19:02 (CEST)
Well... you are right. The only time I see something of you it's WP:BTNI, a placement of an incorrect image or you mass replacing images, again with BTNI, of images that are equal, or just only bigger, to the replaced image. So... how else should I asume good faith, if I only see you in bad situations?
But lets get back to what we are here for: your new image: why is this one correct and the old one not. I haven't seen any prove, anywhere, for your file being correct and the old one not. Dqfn13 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 19:12 (CEST)
You only see what you choose to see. You ignore the thousands of images I create, the dozens of articles I create, the thousands of edits where I replace incorrect images with sourced or superior versions. You choose to see bad faith and then you deny you ever did when confronted about it. Fry1989 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 19:14 (CEST)
Let's make things absolutely clear here. You are the one that replaced the images. So you are the one with the burden of proof. I have notified you of the fact that I reversed all your contributions where you replaced the flag of the Isle of Man, stating that there is serious doubt on wether or not your version is correct or better. Unless you can provide some proof of your version being better, the replacing of the existing images can not be tolerated. If they are simply a different version, there's WP:BTNI, which states that correcting something that is not clearly wrong is not allowed. If you cannot give us any sources to backup your claims, we'll have to assume that they are not even of equal guality. So please, name us your sources. This matter is closed unless you provide those sources. EvilFreD (overleg) 6 jun 2014 19:21 (CEST)
I will gladly discuss my faith, or lack there of, in a nother discussion. This discussion should be about your file versus the one being used. As EvilFreD said: you are the one who has to prove he's right. Dqfn13 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 19:27 (CEST)
You brought bad faith into this yourself with your deliberate accusations of improper actions, and now you want to hide away from it and save it for another discussion? That's not how I do things. There are zero sources that the other file is correct in any way, and you have not provided any yourself either despite the claim you have them. The supporting soures which are already posted on the file's Commons discussion page support the original manner of centering the triskelion, and you refuse to post your supposed counter-sources there despite being given the opportunity. You are interfering with my work simply because you do not trust me.
EvilFreD, let's make things just as clear for you. I am restoring the original image before any changes were made to the file on Commons and before any dispute was made. The rules of Wikimedia favour maintaining the original version of an image during a dispute until after any resolution has been formed. I am not "replacing" images, I am restoring them Fry1989 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 19:37 (CEST)
Not a later discusion a nother, seperate from this one. I found the site of the Isle of Man showing a flag, so have a look under the heading Flag. Tkae in mind: there is no construction sheet and no discription on how the flag should look, only the history of the flag is told. I've also read the discussion page of the other file, truth to be told: you haven't given any sources while SiBr4 did give his/her sources: FoTW and VM. Dqfn13 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 20:52 (CEST)
Actually FOTW is one of my sources, and if read entirely it shows that there are no official construction sheets and the way of centering the triskleion is unclear. So yes I do have sources, and I would love to see yours if you have any separate from those already posted by others. Fry1989 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 21:13 (CEST)
I've used FOTW for my flag articles... so that site was also found by me. But I still haven't seen your sources. And if there is no official sheet: your replacement is WP:BTNI, an official guideline. You also haven't properly shown FOTW is wrong. Also FOTW shows some form of sheet how the flag is "build" or proportioned. So your version may be good, but in that case replacing it is BTNI, or your version is en:WP:OR (Dutch version, in here also a guideline. Dqfn13 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 21:40 (CEST)
Hello Fry1989, you replaced the flag image in an archive page from me and that caused the problems you now encounter as I contacted my fellow admins above. As a regular visitor to the Isle of Man I have a flag of the Isle of Man hanging in my home in the proper measurements which are also to be found here so the 2:1 ratio and the triskele placed in th center . You moved the triskele so that the "legs" are the same distance from the edge but this caused the triskele to move away from the centre. Hope this makes sense to you. Happily here on nl-wiki the problem has been dealt with. Since your work with a semi-automatic tool and you did it cross wiki I trust you will restore matters elsewhere yourself now? Kind regards,   MoiraMoira overleg 6 jun 2014 21:50 (CEST)

@MoiraMoira, Mbch331, Dqfn13, EvilFreD, Peter b: I have started a request for comment at Commons. Please give your opinion there. SiBr4 (overleg) 6 jun 2014 23:38 (CEST)

CommentBewerken

moved from Overleg gebruiker:MoiraMoira
I create "damage" here you say? What about the damage that was caused by EvilFreD when they reverted me and created an inconsistency? Why isn't it considered damaging to revert a user's edit from 10 months ago for no reason other than because you don't trust them, and created image problems like that? Why is it only me who causes damage? Hypocrisy. Fry1989 (overleg) 7 jun 2014 19:47 (CEST)

Hi I asked you here if you would be willing to restore the damage. You never replied. Now you come here to blame a colleague for the mess you created. If this is your position here it is very simple - you have no place on nl-wiki to edit anymore as your contributions harm our project. Please react here so we know what to do. The choice is yours. I moved this to your talk page now which is on my watch list and await your reply here.   MoiraMoira overleg 7 jun 2014 20:13 (CEST)
I do not understand what you mean by "restore the damage". If you mean am I willing to leave the Isle of Man flag alone, then the answer is yes. But in return I want my edits to not be reverted without proper reasons. As I have tried to explain on EvilFreD's talk page, their revert has created an inconsistent set of images. All the other Belgian royal standards use the same drawing except for Albert II's. Why is that not considered damaging? Why is it ok to revert someone's edit from 10 months ago and cause that damage? If all you Dutch users are more interested in reverting me because you can and care less about consistent images, than maybe I'm not welcome here and will put my effort into improving other Wikis, it will only be your loss if I do. If there is one thing I hate more than anything else it is hypocrisy, so if my edits are damaging you must admit that EvilFred's edit also is damaging. Fry1989 (overleg) 7 jun 2014 20:22 (CEST)
Hi whether you "leave a specific flag alone" is not the problem. The problem is that you make large scale changes who are unsourced, sometimes unnecessary, sometimes disputed, somethings outright wrong. Can you understand this is cause for serious concern with nl-wiki? I am afraid I see no solution here reading your rather aggressive reaction and unwillingness to face up to circumstances and take responsibility for what you do here.   MoiraMoira overleg 7 jun 2014 20:27 (CEST)
I want an answer to why my replacing one image with another is damaging, but causing inconsistency is not. I want an answer to why it's bad when I do it but not when someone else does it. Whether I leave here or you block me will not change anything, images get replaced all the time by different users for all sorts of reasons. Only when I do it is it bad, is what you are saying to me. I have told you I am willing to admit where I am wrong, but in return I want you to admit where I am right. I'm not always wrong, but that is how you are treating me. Fry1989 (overleg) 7 jun 2014 20:31 (CEST)
If you lack any insight and are not willing to comply or face up to reality I am afraid this wikiversion is not the place for you to edit at all.   MoiraMoira overleg 7 jun 2014 20:35 (CEST)
Are you not reading what I'm saying? I told you I am willing to admit where I have made a mistake, but I am asking that you admit where I have done good edits, and explain why it is better for this project to have a set of 5 images where 1 doesn't match the rest of them. Why is that better? Why is it bad that I made them consistent? You're not willing to do that, you just want to blame me and ignore any good things I've done. Fry1989 (overleg) 7 jun 2014 20:42 (CEST)
Hi, since you simply continued to edit with once change in text was unsourced, and both were edits that did qualify als WP:BTNI this leaves me with no other opportunity than to block your editing privileges for one day. You can comment about the block here. Further diatribes are unwanted.   MoiraMoira overleg 7 jun 2014 21:15 (CEST)
You won't answer my question. And what is wrong with my new edits? What is wrong with moving the image to the right side like it is on all other coat of arms pages? I didn't change anything except move the image from the left side of the page to the right side and make it bigger, and for that you block me! Why does that deserve a block? Are there no edits I can make that are good edits here? I have told you three times now that I am willing to admit where I have made bad edits but you keep ignoring me. Fry1989 (overleg) 7 jun 2014 21:19 (CEST)
I have been trying to show you that I make good edits, and instead you block me for it. You refuse to answer any of my questions, or explain things that I do not understand, but somehow you demand I say certain things that I do not even understand what you want me to say. Fry1989 (overleg) 7 jun 2014 21:26 (CEST)
And my two edits you didn't like have been reverted by a Dutch user back. Clearly they were good edits, but you blocked me for them. You have abused your admin powers and blocked a user for good edits, and refuse to explain to me what it is you want me to say. I have told you I made mistakes, I do not understand what else you want me to say!!!! TELL ME!!! Fry1989 (overleg) 7 jun 2014 21:38 (CEST)
I have requested an independent admin to review your block. Please see RegBlok. Woody|(?) 7 jun 2014 21:42 (CEST)
MoiraMoira refuses to tell me what it is they expect me to say or do, I do not understand and I have made that clear. There was no reason to block me for those three edits, it was in bad faith and an abusive block. MoiraMoira will not tell me what is wrong with any of the edits I have asked they look at, all they want to do is make me leave nl-wiki and accuse me of "damaging" it. Fry1989 (overleg) 7 jun 2014 21:51 (CEST)
@Woodcutterty - That is fine with me. I stepped in as the -nth admin here and decided to act. As you can read above the contributor cannot understand our language and left many unsolved problems. I decided it was time to act when he continued with a btni-edit and another one unsourced and also btni. He clearly does not grasp what the problems are. It is a matter of many edits over a longer period that require scrutiny alas and a contributor not willing to clean up the problems he caused nor understand the problems and simply continues. Kind regards.   MoiraMoira overleg 7 jun 2014 21:53 (CEST)
I have asked you to explain and you won't! How is it fair to block me for good edits because you won't tell me what it is you want me to say? Fry1989 (overleg) 7 jun 2014 21:55 (CEST)
FYI: there is a request for unblock at WP:RB because this block is (imo) against the blocking policy. JurgenNL (overleg) 7 jun 2014 21:57 (CEST)

DeblockedBewerken

Hello Fry1989,

I've deblocked you. But this does not mean that I don't see that there are more structural problems with your edits and behaviour here. As part of the deblocking I've described here which behavioural changes from you are necessary to keep editing on the Dutch Wikipedia. If problems with your edits or behaviour keep going on a more long term block will follow.

Mvg, Bas (o) 8 jun 2014 00:56 (CEST)

Recent edits.Bewerken

Hello Fry1989,

Did you read and understand the basic concept of WP:BTNI? In this edit all you do is changing the size of a file (file size can be changed in preferences, not specifying a size is therefore better). The size is a matter of taste, and not necessarily an improvement. In this edit you specify a personal taste size and remove the thumb and file description. That's a decrease in quality. Given the recent unrest these edits making no or small improvements (or even making it worse than before) are not a good idea, real improvements are welcome. Just visiting pages and moving a bit with images and changing sizes and removing captions is not wanted.

Mvg, Bas (o) 8 jun 2014 22:45 (CEST)

I have asked several times for clarification on what BTNI actually means. And the reason I changed the size was because the image was excessively small, on other pages it's excessively big. What is the harm in having a reasonable and standard image size? Again, is there nothing I can do right here? Every thing I do I'm accused of "damaging" the project. Fry1989 (overleg) 8 jun 2014 22:49 (CEST)
If this was any other project, or if it was any other user than me, nobody would care at all about my edits. Because of this "unrest", every single thing I do is "damaging" the project and making it worse. Fry1989 (overleg) 8 jun 2014 22:55 (CEST)
Also, do you know what "thumb" does? It makes the images view in their original resolution, so if an image on Commons is really big it will show up big and if it's really small it will show up small. That's why I removed "thumb" and instead gavethe image a set resolution of 250px. If all the images are set to 250px, they all show the same size and are uniform. How is that damaging? I would call it an improvement. And the reason I removed the description is because some pages have a description and some pages do not. When the description only says "Wapen of country", it's just repeating the article title, and when there is only one image on the page there is no need for that. I do not understand how that is damaging either. Nobody would care if it was any other user doing this. Fry1989 (overleg) 8 jun 2014 23:05 (CEST)
If it would have been any other user I would have warned him/her not doing so and also pointed out WP:BTNI. If you want I can translate the first paragraphs for you. Usually Google Translate is a good indication and mostly even understandable.
Thumb shows the images in a resolution of 250px... so you don't have to change thumb to right|250px... Dqfn13 (overleg) 8 jun 2014 23:09 (CEST)
It is not my fault that nl-wiki is not uniform. You have images on the right side and the left side, you have images that are too big and too small, you have images with descriptions and without descriptions, and then you blame me for trying to make some sense of it and make it more uniform. All my fault for trying to help where help is not wanted. Fry1989 (overleg) 8 jun 2014 23:14 (CEST)
Thumb shows the images in a resolution which is set in the user preferences, the standard is something like 250px. Not using thumb makes the images appear in their full size (if no other size is specified). Captions are helpful for those who are visually impaired, preferably every image should have a caption. BTNI states that an edit which is not an improvement should not be made. Changing filesizes, moving files and changing invisible stuff are the main examples of BTNI edits. If you plan on going around only changing image sizes and locations please don't. All uniform articles is not a goal here, you could've known this by now. The uniform style you want to use is not the best as captions are lost and filesizes specified. The optimal style is always a matter of taste, therefore the rule WP:BTNI is there, exactly for this kind of case. Mvg, Bas (o) 8 jun 2014 23:15 (CEST)
(bwc) I was already kind of afraid that you didn't understand BTNI, but now I'm sure you don't. BTNI is all about respecting the choices of other authors. To you your chances may seem like an improvement. To somebody else, mostly the original author but in fact anyone, it may feel like the opposite. Those kind of changes are often the cause of annoyance amongst contributors.
As for your statement on the thumb-tag. I'm actually flabbergasted that you seem to think that the tag causes the image to be displayed in it's original size. The name alone denotes that it doesn't. EvilFreD (overleg) 8 jun 2014 23:20 (CEST)
If having descriptions is preferable, then why would it be bad to make the articles uniform so all of them do? The point I'm making is that no matter what I do here I can't do anything right in your eyes. If I remove the descriptions it's bad, but if I made sure they all had descriptions you would say that's bad too. I don't understand how nl-wiki ever gets anything done is nothing can ever be changed no matter how good the reason, the way the author makes the article is how it has be be left forever. Fry1989 (overleg) 8 jun 2014 23:22 (CEST)
That also means that I will never be able to translate this article on to nl-wiki like I did for the French and German ones, because there is already a nl-wiki version and if I change anything that's bad. I can't add new countries or new signs because I'll violate BTNI. Fry1989 (overleg) 8 jun 2014 23:25 (CEST)
Now you're just going into the hypotheticals. I took a chance by giving you another chance, when I saw that you made mistakes I felt it necessary to point this out, and as it turned out that you did not understand BTNI yet (you previously stated otherwise), this seems like a good thing. Thus you can things right, but if you make a mistake you have to own it and not deny it. The BTNI-rule is only about changes which are not an actual improvement. If you can reach consensus about a prefered style than uniformization is an option, I think reaching this consensus would be hard. Going around and implementing your prefered style is not an option, similar to that I can't and don't go around and change all articles into my prefered style. Improvements or additions are welcome. You're misinterpreting BTNI. Mvg, Bas (o) 8 jun 2014 23:29 (CEST)
It's not a hypothetical, I'm trying to understand what you are saying and it doesn't make sense to me. Fry1989 (overleg) 8 jun 2014 23:31 (CEST)
"but if I made sure they all had descriptions you would say that's bad too. " is hypothetical and not true, although it would be on the edge of being an improvement. I would advise you not to see this as an encouragement to go and add captions everywhere. Mvg, Bas (o) 8 jun 2014 23:38 (CEST)
I'm not! I'm trying to understand what is right and what is wrong, and what you say doesn't make any sense to me. Removing descriptions is bad, but it's preferred they all have descriptions even though many do not. Those two statements contradict each other. Don't you see I don't understand this and am trying to? Fry1989 (overleg) 8 jun 2014 23:41 (CEST)
It makes perfect sense, maybe try a bit more, the two statements do not contradict eachother. Preferable doesn't mean "only option". Bas (o) 8 jun 2014 23:47 (CEST)
Improvment is adding or correcting information. So adding a country to the article about road signs is okay. Changing a thumb into a file with |right|250px is BTNI, as thumb or miniatuur do the same. Dqfn13 (overleg) 8 jun 2014 23:49 (CEST)
But I did correct wrong information and I was reverted under BTNI. Don't you see how the way I was reverted yesterday has made me confused about BTNI? Because even when I corrected wrong info I was still reverted. Fry1989 (overleg) 8 jun 2014 23:57 (CEST)
No, with the CoA of Lebanon you didn't correct anything. There wasn't anything wrong, I choose for klein wapen as the country might choose to add supporters or such in the future and that will be the groot wapen then. Dqfn13 (overleg) 9 jun 2014 00:21 (CEST)
Fine. If I translate the traffic signs article to nl-wiki, here are the changes I will be making. I will make it look exactly like the English, French and German versions, except all the descriptions will be in Dutch and the countries will be alphabetical in Dutch, and I would be adding 5 new countries. Is that allowed or would I be reverted because I'm moving countries around and the current version is not alphabetical? Fry1989 (overleg) 9 jun 2014 00:29 (CEST)
If you add five countries to the table you can change the order to alphabetical instead of... what ever it is right now. Change the article in steps, as replacing the current article with a translation won't be accepted. You can read here about problems with a translationproject. That project translates articles from en.wiki to Dutch and other languages and replaced the local articles with the translated English, thereby removing local information. Dqfn13 (overleg) 9 jun 2014 00:58 (CEST)
I guess I won't be updating that article then, because I can't do it in steps. If I do that, it would be messy. Trying to fix anything on nl-wiki is a waste of time because I can't do anything right. Fry1989 (overleg) 9 jun 2014 01:13 (CEST)

Block my account please.Bewerken

I am requesting my account on nl-wiki be blocked from editing articles for a period of 1 year. This wiki is full of linguistic bullies, double standards, and rules that can be twisted which would make contributing constructively impossible. Fry1989 (overleg) 9 jun 2014 03:22 (CEST)

If I strictly follow the rules I can't block you. The problem here aren't the local rules, but the fact you don't understand them. This wiki isn't full of linguistic bullies, double standards or rules that can be twisted. Otherwise this Wiki would have been dead (nobody could edit anything). This wiki isn't a clone of the English wiki, but a wiki on its own, with our own rules within the rules of Wikimedia. Some of your edits have been reverted without a valid reason, only because of bad faith. But a lot of edits were correctly reversed because your improvement was only an improvement in your eyes. Several people have tried to explain that to you, but you can't or don't seem to understand that. Try to understand the local rules and in doubt ask others for advice. This way the assume bad faith for your edits will turn in assume good faith. Now it's up to you: Do you want to try to understand the local rules as explained above or will you assume bad faith on our side? If you choose the latter, I will do as you requested and block you. Mbch331 (Overleg) 9 jun 2014 07:40 (CEST)
The problem is that the rules are being manipulated and selectively applied to harass me, and users who do not want me here are bullying me based on my inability to understand Dutch without the aid of a translator. I have never asked anyone to speak to me in English, but when people say I don't speak Dutch so I don't belong here that is linguistic bullying. The double standards being applied here are unacceptable, when I do something it's not ok but when someone else does it is perfectly fine, the hypocrisy and lying is ridiculous. I do not intend to stop using bots to continue my edits where I see the need, and I am no longer interested in improving nl-wiki in any manner, so please block my account. If you don't block me now, you will just have to later because nobody wants my edits and my use of bots will affect nl-wiki. Fry1989 (overleg) 9 jun 2014 20:07 (CEST)
Well if you are stuck in assume bad faith, then so be it. I've given your account a softblock for 1 year. (You can't edit here, except on your own talk page.) Mbch331 (Overleg) 9 jun 2014 20:13 (CEST)
Thank you. Fry1989 (overleg) 10 jun 2014 18:48 (CEST)

Proof I was right!Bewerken

I now have proof I was right that BTNI was being manipulated against me to prevent me for contributing to NL-Wiki, including the revision of good edits, and that it was not simply an assumption of bad faith on my part or my own misunderstanding of the BTNI rule. I have found several edits of mine that were reverted under BTNI have since again been made by other users that are native to NL-Wiki and those edits have not been reverted under a claim of violating BTNI. This is a clear evidence of bias and bullying. For that reason, I will NEVER contribute to NL-Wiki again. Fry1989 (overleg) 7 apr 2015 21:36 (CEST)

Survey bewerkers Nederlandstalige Wikipedia 2018Bewerken

Dit jaar organiseert Wikimedia Nederland voor de derde keer een survey onder de bewerkers van de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia. Misschien heb je de banner al voorbij zien komen. Er zijn in 2013 en 2015 soortgelijke surveys gehouden. Doel van de survey is om meningen van de bewerkers te peilen (bijvoorbeeld over de werksfeer) en inzicht te krijgen in de samenstelling van de gemeenschap.

Naar aanleiding van suggesties in De Kroeg benaderen we de meest actieve bewerkers persoonlijk om te vragen mee te doen. We zijn erg geïnteresseerd in je mening. Meedoen kan tot 17 december. Hier vind je de link naar de survey.

Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland 7 dec 2018 05:33 (CET)