User talk:Natuur12

Just to note that on Wikipedia, when there is a genus with a single species, the species is put on the genus page, not a specific one. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this makes solving intererwikiconflicts really difficult because the dutch wikipedia makes different pages for the genus and the specie. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<3 Olivier Bommel (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm delicious. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo this edit to a closed archive. It's possible that this edit will change the meaning of the original AE decision, which has no benefit and could lead to future confusion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A, I renamed the picture at commons so it happens automaticly. Otherwise commons delinker would have done it after several hours. If i undo my eddit it is possible that the immage won't work. I will undo it but it's not me if the picture doesn't work. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. At the moment one link seems to be forwarding to the other. The reason this could be significant is that the AE case involved a dispute over images. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the OTRS ticket allows for permission, but after re-reading the article, it is a clear advertisement and should remain deleted until it can be rewritten neutrally. Wizardman 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, thanks. I know what to do now. I will tell him that the text isnot suitable for Wikipedia. Natuur12 (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stichtse Vrije School - you may not be aware of the way established mainstream high schools are handled. In fact they can't even be CSD'd at A7 for lack of importance or significance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is just a small school in a small town with no independent sources. I couldnot find reliable independent sources. This not not an mainstream school in it's homecountry btw. It is an alternative school. The ironic part is that this school isnot even relevant enough for an article at thge Dutch Wikipedia. Natuur12 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stichtse Vrije School. Not all Wikipedias have the same criteria. Perhaps you would like to consider creating its article on the Dutch Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm the one who deleted it since there where not independent sources ;). That's why I nominated it. Seldon found so less independent sources for a school. If there where enough independant sources I would not have nominated it of course. The article where created by the same user btw and he has a conflict of intrest. Didn't mentioned that one because I didnot think it was a fair argument. Natuur12 (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Natuur, can you do me a favor and enlighten me on the deletion of that photograph? Was it Heleenmees2.png or something like that? I can't find a history or discussion; if it was handled as an OTRS ticket, I'd love to hear a little bit more--in private if you like, and of course I'm not asking you to cough up anything confidential. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the picture was originally deleted by me because the OTRS-ticet was invalid. It was a Wikipedia only permission at the time I deleted the image. The discussion continued here and now here. The main problem is that the person who is asking permission doesn't understand commons policy's and the press organisation she is trying to get permission from doesn't understand what she wants from them. There are three party's involved, the press agency, the person trying to release the image under a free license and the OTRS-agent. It remains unclear if the copyrightholder really understands that the uploader wants them, namely to agree to release the image under a free license. And since there is a licensing fee involved we would also need some evidence that the fee has been paid before accepting the image. But that wouldn't be much of a problem I think. I'm not the OTRS-agent dealing with this ticket btw. I just gave my opinion on the ticket a couple of times since it can cause a lot of trouble if this goes wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha--thanks. Man, there's a a lot of people talking past each other in those conversations and emails. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Thank you, but why will it be deleted? No deletion template on image at Commons! bishapod talk to your inner fish 23:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Since it was a derivative of this image and there was no evidence of permission. The file was listed for deletion here. Together those file's where used for more than 250+ times so I guessed that replacing the file before deleting it was the best solution. Natuur12 (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. Pity. Fine image. Thank you for the new one. bishapod talk to your inner fish 08:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You have banned my account permenantly, based on false aquisitions. I have notified an abuser that I was going to the police tommorow to discuss the use of my real name on a talkpage, as this is illegal. That is in no way a threat, cause I did not make any demands as there is simply nothing to be done that will stop me. I am obligated to do this, like any citizen should!In no way did I speak of taking legal action. Only the OM (Openbaar Ministerie) can take legal action in this case (if they do). And like I said in the mail it was to 'inform me' if such a thing is even possible.

As you can tell from the talkpage, MoiraMoira putmy real name on there on purpose. I repeatidly asked her not to do this and yet she mentioned my actual personalname in her two most recent posts. I can understand you want to protect your friend from Wikipedia:Afzetting_moderatoren, but this is way out of line.

You also did not put my name on Wikipedia:Blokkeringsmeldingen/Blokpeilingen, and I have no way of making sure my acountname gets renamed into something neutral. As you can see on my talkpage reasons for the continous reverting of my request where not given on the talkpage. Now with the bann, I have no way of getting my personalname removed from the talkpage. What she is been doing is against the law. If I told her I was going to bed early today, would that be a threat too? Cause you seem to be using the same logic! EmileZ (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why was File:Kunisada (1830) key block face b.jpg renamed to File:Yoshiiku (1862) key block face b.jpg? The webpage at the Brooklyn Mesuem (where the image comes from) doesn't mention Yoshiiku at all. It does look like I mis-named the file, though—it should have been Eisen Keisai. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rename was requested by Jean11 and the motivation was designer of the plate is Utagawa Yoshiiku, the date seal is clearly „year of the dog“ (= 1862)|user=Horst Gräbner. This sounded valid and that's why I honored the request. If you belive that the rename was incorrect feel free to request another rename. Natuur12 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it does say 芳幾筆—and here is the printed image. Ukiyo-e.org say it was from 1871, though, and I don't see "year of the dog" in the print (which couldn't tell youif it were 1850 or 1862 or 1874 or whatever anyways—these years cycle every twelve years). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Natuur12, hello Curly Turkey, the rename was not requested by me and I haven´t been carried out the renaming. I changed the name of the author and the category. The source says: Artists: Utagawa Toyokuni III (Kunisada) (side a), Japanese, 1786-1864; Eisen Keisai (side b), Japanese, 1790-1848, ″Dates: ca. 1830″, and "Side b: Keisai 18 Tokyo cuisine style dishes. (Tokyo ryori jyuuhachi sakana) Name of place: Sumiyoshi cho… (incomplete) The other name of place: Honya bakuro (bakuro) four Carver's name: Cho-ei Keyblock for outline of ukiyo-e print showing two women in a restaurant, holding papers in their hands. Condition: Few tiny breaks in outline. Old break (stable) at upper left.". And Utagawa Toyokuni III and Utagawa Toyokuni are diffrent persons, see the birth dates. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. When I uploaded the image, I just used the information on the museum's webpage—I assumed they'd have it right. I've left a message on Horst Gräbner's talk page about the date. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted and permission recorded, and I've responded back to the sender of the OTRS email. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That was fast :). Natuur12 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make this edit: here? Is it not a koekoek? You said it has nothing to do with the topic, but maybe you didn't notice that it's a page covering more than one topic. Jane (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a really bad drawing of a koekoek while the DP is mainly about person and there is one short sentence that koekoek means "cuckoo". That info is misleading. Koekoeken (a family) is translated as cuckoo. Not the Dutch name of the species koekoek, that can be translated as "common cuckoo". And really, that drawing can hardly been used to illustrate the species koekoek because of the bad quality. Just look at the perspective of the bird, really unnatural. Natuur12 (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright, the work Koekoek is clearly on the file page. The point of the "DP" as you call it is to show different meanings of "Koekoek". I was afraid that you meant that the picture was mislabelled. There is nothing wrong with using the image in the way I intended, which is to illustrate an old image of a Dutch "koekoek". I disagree that it's misleading, or that it's "a really bad drawing". Please undo your reversion. Jane (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, please look at the image closely and look at the perspective. Plus it is nonsense to use images at DP's anyhow. Natuur12 (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see File:Kuckuck maennchen.jpg and File:Pepûk.jpg and file:Coucou gris - Cuculus canorus- juvénile.JPG for example. Does this drawing look like a genuine koekoek? I don't think so. Natuur12 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree it's silly to have just one picture at a "DP" (we call them "disambig" pages here), but I don't think it's silly to have pictures, and ideally it would be nice to have pictures of all topics. I am not sure, however, that all of those images are of the Dutch Koekoek. Please remember, the point is to convery the idea of "koekoek" and not a random "cuckoo", as that would be a translation of the Dutch page. Since this is the English Wikipedia, specifically "Dutch" meanings apply. A gallery of images of the "koekoek", including the historical one and the images you found, would apply here. I particularly like this one, but all of them would be acceptable if they have ever been seen in the Netherlands. Jane (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and including the Dutch colonies of course! Jane (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a Dutch koekoek and given the phrase but all of them would be acceptable if they have ever been seen in the Netherlands. I wonder if you know what you are talking about. Even if we follow your logic that doesn't make scense. I aready explained why the translation is wrong in my first reply. Where can I read about the image policy regarding images at DP's? Natuur12 (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy about images on disambigs - whatever gave you that idea? If you don't care about the Dutch meaning, then I don's see why you would revert the edit in the first place. I think you do care, actually, but I still don't understand why, and I certainly don't understand why you think more than one picture is a bad idea. Jane (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DP's are there to direct the readers to the correct article quick and clean. Images distract and therefor undermine the function about the DP. I asked for the relevant policy because you made it sound like there was some policy. My bad if I misinterperted. Where did I say that I don't care about the Dutch name? I claimed that the translation is wrong and that there is no such thing as a "Dutch koekoek". The bird looks exacty the same as the once borne elswhere in Europe. Yes again you give not a single argument why that image has to be there besides a want it to be there. This way it is impossible to have a intelectual discussion. Please read my arguments and comment on those. I believe that I have motivated my action clearly enough by now. Unless you have some arguments I suggest we call it a day. Natuur12 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I offended you, that was certainly not my intention. I selected a different picture and hopefully this one will satisfy all of your concerns! Jane (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:Don McCarthy page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

You blocked me on the dutch version, so I can only write on my own page. Can you please have a look at my message ? Tanks. --Glabbeek (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for leaving message on my talk page. That new blank page was created by mistake. Mistakenly i clicked on save button. Thanks--Amanrajveer (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no problem. Stuff like that happens all the time. 09:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

With this ever dramatic world and WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e- composted SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you :). Natuur12 (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, you reintroduced a vandalism/test edit by "Gvsulybfaoeuy" that duplicated most of the article within itself. I have undone your revert of the IP editor that fixed the article. Neil916 (Talk) 18:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. I already left a message at the IP's talk page. Thanks for fixing. Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. After I saved your talk page note, I noticed that you had already dropped a note on the IP page. Have a good day. Neil916 (Talk) 18:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royalista is a News Agency Blog that publishes about Royals but even they need permission.

--Hipposcrashed (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hipposcrashed,

I nominated the file for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. I can't find any evidence that it is released under a free license. Natuur12 (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks so much for your biological articles. Just a reminder that on en.WP we don't normally link common terms, including commonly known geographical names, unless there's a particular reason to do so. Nor years/dates.

Cheers Tony (talk)

Thanks for the advice. I will keep it in mind. Natuur12 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hi, in a series of articles about euro coins there are links to the site http://myeurohobby.eu/. There are also links to http://eurocollection.ning.com/, a cover for the same myeurohobby.eu. And some articles have an "external link" called euroHOBBY which is also myeurohobby.eu. A user name that keeps popping up in connection with these sites is User:Melitikus. He even replaced a working site with myeurohobby claiming the old one was dead, however, I just checked it, it is working. Could you please have a look at it: is this a series of links we should remove? What to do about it? --VanBuren (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (I understand if you do not want to get involved. I can just remove the links and see what will happen, or I can ask for a second opinion. I prefer the latter.)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of rectores magnifici of the Erasmus University Rotterdam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Klein. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell do you think you are? There is an page on ME -an inaccurate, misleading, damaging and pointless page on ME - and you accuse me of'vandalism' for trying to remove it? It's outrageous. I will take legal action unless that page is removed by the end of this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.93.50 (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Graham McCann,

Since you are treatening with legal action there is nothing I can do to help you. It would have been a lot easier if you just asked nicely instead of bullying people around. Natuur12 (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I told him Natuur. I'm now getting the same threats. Ask Samtar to forward the email to you if you didn't get it. The whole context behind this is suspicious, as Collect has been fighting to the burger to get this article deleted. Tell me, do we just delete articles because the subject bullies and threatens the site into submission?? I've asked him to point out the errors and offensive material and even edited it in light of his concerns myself, but continue to be treated awfully. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly got involved because an admin threatened to revoke my rollback after I used the wrong notice board to report this legal threat. (The Wiki's I normally edit have far less notice boards and if you pick the wrong it doesn't really matter.) Not that I particular care about this tool but it is quite helpful when reverting the Commons delinkerbot for example.

It is a bit of a dilemma. On the one had we don’t want to reward bad behavior. On the other hand the article is really poor quality. (Though it has improved a bit.) Sloppy mistakes, original research and a missing balance plus if you take a look at the sources they are hardly independent and let alone secondary. The latter results in original research. (Making a synthesis based on primary source material.) Natuur12 (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any original research, the article is all verifiable. Even some of the errors he pointed out like writing for the Daily Mail, he claims this on his own site biography. There is an issue though synthesis with some sources which he has written for to make claims, so I guess that's what you mean on OR with that and I agree. It does lack bulk in terms of biographical coverage though, but this is common to scholar types. We've thousands of articles on similar university scholars and writers who are very notable for their publications but not biographically. It would seem very odd for wikipedia to exclude documenting such an established writer, he's generally seen as one of Britain's authorities on British comedy, a comedy historian. If there was material in it which was clearly very distressing I could understand more, but to me it looks as if Collect emailed him and alerted him about it to try to get it deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen his comment "I'm really busy teaching a course at the moment, and to my horror I'm now getting students asking me about this wretched thing. I'm not of any interest sufficient as to warrant an entry - I see a couple of people pointed this out to the author at the start - and it really, really upsets me. Is my case really SO contentious as to make this worth dragging on? I know it's unfashionable but such exposure gives me no pleasure whatsoever and a great deal of pain." previously. The timing does seem very suspicious as Collect has been trying hard to get this article deleted and even started a thread on Wikipediocracy. We do need to find out exactly what is causing him a problem and resolve it, but by the looks of it he just doesn't like having an article on here, primarily because it only offers a sketchy, unbalanced account of his career achievements which embarrasses him when students mention it?. That's understandable I think, but is wikipedia and the world better off to ignore such a reputable author on British comedy? I think not, and it's difficult to take seriously when he includes a similarly sketchy and poorly written biography on his own site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Natuur12. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

-- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why you do this here? Discussion about (lack of) quality of a file can be made at Commons. No discussion of things from one project on another. You should now being an admin...  

Please read

civil. Natuur12 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-us has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Natuur12. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi, u heeft mijn ip 1 maand geleden geblokkeerd :( voor onbepaalde tijd Nou, wil ik vragen of u me ip kunt unblocken want ik wist niet dat je ip geblokkeerd kan worden Want ik zag veel mensen, beroemde mensen hun dingen bewerken dus ik dacht ik doe het ook wel een x maar Oppeens had ik een ip blok, ik wist dat echt niet als ik vooaf gewaarschuwd werd dan zou ik het niet doen maar dat Gebeurde niet, dus ik hoop dat u me ip unblockeerd was ik vindt het echt heel jammer dat mijn ip wordt geband En niet mijn aacount :) als u mij wilt contacteren via email: mijn email: [email protected]

En ik stuur dit via het engelse wikipedia omdat ik in nederlandse wiki niks kan doen wegens de ban Mvg,

Eigenaar van dit En o ja ik ben pas 13 :( en ik weet echt niet veel over het internet enzo

NL5713 (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Natuur12. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Natuur12. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you still know what was the approximate width of this picture (used in page ore)? I would guess around 30 cm. Could you confirm? Thanks! LFgeol (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LFgeol,

I didn't take the picture myself but merely imported it from Flickr. The photographer is James St. John, whose contact info can be found here. Kind regards, Natuur12 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoogholtje bridge, if believe the article should be kept (as it appears you do), would you please be so kind as to indicate so, by adding: *Keep before your comments. Makes it clearer to closer of the AfD. Thanks. Djflem (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Djflem,

I already left one "keep vote". I see little point in voting a second time. Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed your earlier entry in the discussion thread. Djflem (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Natuur12 I noted you contributed to University of the Netherlands videos on Commons. I wanted to let you know there is a discussion running about it here, here and here --PJ Geest (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PJ Geest, thank you for notifying me. I don't find myself familiar enough with en-wiki policy and practices to be able to contribute anything useful in the discussion. Kind regards, Natuur12 (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]