User talk:ErikWarmelink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Regarding edits made to Open ICEcat

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, ErikWarmelink! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I used Template:Cleanup-spam this time. Erik Warmelink 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For maintaining a valiant stance against even the sneakiest of all vandals, I hereby present you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar.

-- Cat chi? 05:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Until now, the biggest change I made in a template was adding a single space. If noone complains about that edit, I might try some more drastic changes. Erik Warmelink 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Article HTTP -Tunnel

This is regarding the comments you made on the article HTTP Tunnel

1. HTTP Tunnel is a generic type of program. The article talks about it as a company. Just because a company names itself "encyclopedia" as an example, it does not reserve the right to talk about it exclusively. The same holds with "HTTP Tunnel".

2. I have added an external link like many other links which were present. If this is unallowed, it has now been removed. The link provided was EXTREMELY relevant to the topic HTTP Tunnel

3. I pasted back something that was removed, because it was relevant to the artice HTTP Tunnel

4. The article is currently written like an advertisement. If I rewrite it as an educational article, about the HTTP Tunneling type of software, will it be removed?

122.167.160.18 17:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Nickolas

  1. HTTP-Tunnel is the name of a company, an HTTP tunnel is a program or server.
  2. I removed those links from HTTP-Tunnel because that article is about the company.
  3. Whether the link is relevant or not, you violated Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.
  4. See the first point. An article about HTTP tunnels might be nice, but doesn't guarantee links to your preferred program. Erik Warmelink 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Great...where were you for the past year when this article has been abused. Glad to have caught some attention on it finally. You only need to view the history to know what I am talking about. Cheers User:122.167.131.222Nick

For a majority of that time, I wasn't at wiki at all, my first edit was made at 21 February 2007. I only stumbled upon HTTP-Tunnel, probably while undoing a spamrun. Even the original HTTP-Tunnel (now renamed to HTTP-Tunnel Client) looked like a hardly disguised advertisement for the company.
A separate article HTTP tunnel would be good and might be less prone to edits by users/employees of http-tunnel.com. If Nick = Nickolas, please start that educational article. Erik Warmelink 15:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done as promised, Thanks 122.167.230.34Nickolas

With reference to 16:16, 9 August 2007 Neonil (Talk | contribs) for the article HTTP-Tunnel - this was on the site for 10 days and there was no comment/updation The moment I added to it, it appears to have been undone Arent we seeing some inconsistency - besides, doesn't a competitor list serve to enrich the topic? Im afraid, this appears to amount to excessive censoring which I believe Wikipedia is against —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolas Nickleby (talk • contribs) ~nickolas—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.17.140 (talk • contribs)

As far as I could tell from other edits, User:Neonil does not have a conflict of interest. Please note the summary ("+ an competitor service added (should there be a group or list of similar services?)"). An unsummarized edit (by 122.167.0.45, not Nickolas Nickleby) provoked my "no need for N lists of N-1 competitors each".
Anyone can still easily find PingFu by following one extra link (Proxy server). It would not enrich wikipedia if the Proxy server#Popular proxy software section was added to every article mentioned in that section. It is not censorship to remove excessive links. One can use 4 tildes (~~~~) to sign contributions to talk pages. Erik Warmelink 18:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1. What is the justification in removing Neonil's contribution then? 2. Besides, its the easiest thing in the world to get someone with no apparent "conflict of interest" to post. I can demonstrate this if you so desire. If it was the unsigned edit that prompted your comment, then the content of the comment has no connection whatsoever with its cause - is there a misplaced sense of righteousness here? 3. The purpose of internal linking is to make it easier for users to read different pages on any topic. I see a lack of clarity on the cause of the edit and conflicting statements Thanks for pointing out the contribution signing method. Cheers Nickolas Nickleby 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Nickolas

  1. "no need for N lists of N-1 competitors each". If one competitor may be added, every competitor may be added.
  2. I know. Although, the COI may still be rather obvious. 122.167.0.45 had no editing history.
  3. True, but we wouldn't add a link to, say, Charlemagne. A long list of internal links which are not part of the text on the subject of the article make the article harder to read. Even links in the text make the article a little bit harder to read:
    • The different colour of the linked term distracts a bit, but
    • we do not need to explain the linked term. If the user is unfamiliar with the term, (s)he can follow the link.
I admit that I have problems expressing myself clearly. In my opinion both PingFu and HTTP-Tunnel lack notability; well, at least the articles do not show why they would be notable. Erik Warmelink 03:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you have been editing the articles, request you to kindly have a look at the changes that have been made which have reversed a huge amount of what you have done. We will wait for your action otherwise will take appropriate editorial action Cheers Nickolas Nickleby 19:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Nickolas

I am sorry, but it looks like this is too big for me to handle now. I am scheduled for surgery within two days and should be at the hospital in 13½ hours. Erik Warmelink 19:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant timing - the least I can do is wish you a speedy recovery from your surgery and hope you dont bite off anything thats too big to chew in future —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolas Nickleby (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for most of your edits. I did not check all of them, but even if the unchecked edits only approach the quality of the checked edits, you are one of the people who make wikipedia reliable. Erik Warmelink 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have not checked all of your edits either. 199.125.109.129 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You do not need to check edits, as long as you make edits like you do. You improve wikipedia, I only try to stop the degradation. Erik Warmelink 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Well I stop once in a while and go on vandal patrol as well. 199.125.109.129 05:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of vandalism

I do not take kindly to people who accuse me of purposly inserting false information into articles. Oh, and for the record. Your name may be Erik, still redirects to eric here. Have a nice day.Rex 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfounded reversions

Flemish isn't, nor ever 'was' a language. Flemish itself is a laymans term. Linguistically it refers to either West or East Flemish. Both dialects of Dutch. Stop reverting me without a properly founded reason.Get some sources once in a while will you?Rex (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is about the etymology of scone. Flanders was a state, the Netherlands wasn't, so Flemish was a language and Dutch wasn't. Where is your source for "inpossible"? Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me?! States generate languages?! That's preposterous. Flemish is not a language, Dutch is. Hence the etymology is Dutch, not Flemish. Flemish isnt a language hence a Flemish origin is impossible.Rex (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
States don't generate languages, the dialects are already there. The state only makes the difference between a dialect and a language. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Totally unfunded nonsense. By this 'logic' Austrian is a language. I'd love to see some sources for this. You know what, I'll send you 1000 dollar if you can name 1 book in support of this view.Rex (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
If Austria would chose to have a language, it would have it (just like Norwegian, Swedish and Danish are separate languages, Norway even has Bokmål and Nynorsk). If you think it is totally unfounded nonsense, you could try changing Dialect (Language varieties are often called dialects rather than languages: ... because the speakers of the given language do not have a state of their own,) and A language is a dialect with an army and navy instead of pushing your regionalistic POV. If you want the name of a book, I'll need more than just a nickname. Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The Weissbergquote doesn't fly Warmelink. I asked for the name of the book stating that states create languages. Provide it or refrain from editing.Rex (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
But the reference to Dialect does. Of course you can ask for a book which states that states create (or generate) languages, but since that is only your strawman, I don't need to prove it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This is wikipedia and you'll prove what others ask you to prove. Linguistics isn't based on a single quote, an opinion. Given that you refuse/fail to provide references (which I already knew were not existant) I assume you hereby acknowledge the sheer nonsense of your remark.Rex (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Commandeer je hondje en blaf zelf, blaaskaak. Start asking instead of bluffing that you would have 1000 dollars. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Schelden is armoede van de geest, dat was al meermaals bewezen maar er is altijd nog wel een gaatje vrij. I wasn't bluffing. I did not assume there was no such book I knew there wasn't one. The elementary difference between laymen and people familiar with the subject.Rex (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be easy, but still take some time, to find a book which says that the split of Serbo-Croatian into Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian was caused by the split of Yugoslavia, not by a change in language of the people living there. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The claim you made was that states generate languages, not that countries can claim they speak a different language compared to for example a neighbouring state. Those are 2 entirely different things.Rex (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That was just your strawman, not my claim. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Your claim: Flanders was a state, the Netherlands wasn't, so Flemish was a language and Dutch wasn't. 'Nough said.Rex (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the dialect of the people in power in a state is often considered a language. Your strawman is that the state generates that language, but it already existed, as a dialect. Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
'Nough said.Rex (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism / Unconstructive behaviour

Why do you delete entire sections, unrelated to the 'problem', because you disagree with a single (already changed) word? Also, why do you accuse others of being wrong, while making unprovable and ridiculous statements yourself?Rex (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Who do you add entire sections of unsourced POV-pushing? Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't push POV everything there is fact. You are the one here with nonsense claims and POV.Rex (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It definitely isn't a fact that Dutch always was by far the most dominant language in the Netherlands. (For other readers: this discussion is about the addition of a subsection "Oppression of the Dutch language" to Dutch (ethnic group)#Dutch language). Algemeen Nederlands (common Dutch) became dominant because it "oppressed" other regional languages (like Frisian, Low Saxon, Brabantian and Limburgish) just like French "oppressed" the Germanic regional languages in Belgium, that is by teaching it in schools and using it exclusively in formal contexts.
O, by the way, Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands (common civilized Dutch) is a depricated term.
Yes, it can be argued that Brabantian had such a large influence on AN that it may properly be called a dialect of AN. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Again, wrong. ABN, which you claim is a depriciated term (thereby making a fool of yourself as you used it numerous times in the past few days) is merely the standard form of a language. The Dutch language includes all Dutch dialects. Limburgish, Brabantian, Hollandic, Zuid Gelders, Zealandic and East/West Flemish. A Standard language has no dialect, it has variaties. American and British English are both English, yet different standard forms. Really, read a proper book(let) before you engage yourself in these kind of discussions.Rex (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
See [1]: die vroeger Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands (ABN) werd genoemd, but indeed, even Algemeen Nederlands has been depricated by nl:Standaardnederlands. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
See [2]. A link to an very recent edit in which you use ABN. You see, you're not really in the position to lecture others. Cheers.Rex (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh sure, I often mirror the idiom of others. That doesn't mean I can't lecture nicknames which continue to get blocked for POV-pushing. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you didn't mirror anyone, let alone me. You're the one who used the term. You said it was a creole remember? Also, I think the word you're looking for is 'user name', a nickname is something else. I know exactly what you're doing Erik. You're just looking for trouble and think someone who got blocked a lot makes an 'acceptable' target. You already know that's wrong, don't make me make others tell you. Back off while you still can, because when I'm right, I really am.Rex (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I did mirror the language of Dutch (ethnic group)#Dutch language, though I must admit I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't you who introduced the error (which is reverted now). I don't attack you, I try to limit the damage you are doing. The amount of errors you introduce in your anti-German and (only in your myopic view) pro-Dutch campaign is ghastly. And yes, when you are right, you really are right; a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day too. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Haha, all you do lately is admitting you were wrong aren't ypu? Perhaps it has something to do with another personal trait of yours: making bogus claims you later can't back up? Cheers. Rex (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being fair in all respects. ..

Erik, you are not a nice person. At least not as your edits are concerned. I' ve watched your editslogs and to be honest, you remove sources, accurate information and replace it with socalled POV (point of view). I have really gotten the imopression you are only editing wikipedia lately to annoy Rex Germanus. Don' t do that. I think wikipedia has a name for it; don' t be a dick. Sorry, buit you are a dick. I reverted many of your edits because I think you are very unfair and unconstructive (and because they were wrong) try to use the talkpage and sources145.93.126.83 08:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I am not a nice person, especially when people abuse wikipedia to push a POV. I am not editting to annoy Rex Germanus, though I can understand it may annoy him.
Reverting edits because you think the editor is a dick, very unfair or unconstructive is WP:OR, if you think the edits are wrong, describe what you think is wrong in the Help:Edit summary.
Your first edit (well, the first edit from the IP address you are using now) created a double redirect (The Netherlands redirects to Netherlands). Erik Warmelink 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just mingeling here, to avoid Erik can further confuse the IP or misunderstand the IP ... The IP wasn't calling you a dick. he or she was refering to WP:DBAD (Wikipedia:Don't be a dick). Reverting people because you think they are unreasonable or unfair/ know they add unsourced (possibly biased) information is not WP:OR (Wikipedia:Original Research). When you decide to lecture newcomers/others, I truly suggest you get your facts straight and refer to the correct policy. Also, you are so quick to refer to the talk page as "the solution" and condem POV/OR, yet you make little or no effort to discuss matters and never provide sources. Indeed, your edits show examples of you removing sources. People here expect that "Wikipedia:Don't be a hypocrit" is embedded in common sense and doesn't need to be written.Rex 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I am not surprised you know what the "newcomer" was referring to. In this edit I did remove a "source", but the summary explains why I removed it, the "source" does not exist (etymologie.nl has no entry "beethof", the entry on "boomgaard" doesn't mention "beethof"). I consider it unlikely you didn't see this edit (which gives a source) since you answered Fram right below it. Erik Warmelink 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Etymologie only has limited access to unsubscribers, you not being willing to pay for it doesn't mean my source is flawed. It's your entire attitude here you remove a source and put some kind of unreferenced opinion of yours in the summary. Why are you even editing Wikipedia? Who is really adding unreferenced POV? You or me?!Rex 20:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Also I don't like your tone in the first sentence. The IP wrote plain simple English, just because I get the point and you didn't doesn't make it him/her a sock of mine. If you think so, why don't you report it? Though given your editing history I understand why these kind of accusations make more sense to you than proof and sources.Rex 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The dislike for the tone of the other is mutual. Erik Warmelink 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not an opinion that Utrecht was part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation during Adrianus' life, only acquired in 1528 by the Habsburg, only transferred from the Lower Rhenish-Westphalian Circle to the Burgundian Circle in 1548. Your source does not dispute that (and so did not corroborate your deletion of "-German"). Erik Warmelink 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a subscription for etymologie.nl (it would be hard to check the entry on "boomgaard" if I hadn't). There is nothing flawed with etymologie.nl itself, claiming that it has an entry on "beethof" is. Erik Warmelink 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Do not lie. You are not subscripted, if you were you would have seen the etymology explained in detail. Do not lie. Also I doubt you have the book I used on 'pope' or that you went to a library to read it. Iow: nonsense. You think the concept of 'nationality' or modern 'citizenship' was present before the 19th century... it wasn't. My book, which you claim to have read but clearly haven't, explains this in great detail. Do not lie as a last ditch effort to prove yourself Erik. Do not lie. You are already harming wikipedia with unreferenced POV edits everywhere, do not further compromise it by making up sources. Don't.Rex 08:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
http://etymologie.nl/e/ewn/ewn-colofon.html#Instituut Perhaps Fontys is too cheap to subscribe, the Universtity of Groningen isn't. Erik Warmelink 09:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What the hell is fontys supposed to mean? Any way, looking on the diclaimer for possible free users isn't going to help you. You claimed to be twice/thrice my age remember? A bit old for a university. Like I said before. Do not lie.Rex 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Fontys, User:ErikWarmelink, nl:gebruiker:129.125.102.126, groups.google profile. Erik Warmelink 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What are you saying? At least try to make sense.Rex 17:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ad hominem arguments

Erik, please try to refrain from personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. Your edit summary in West Flemish[3] is unacceptable, as it doesn't address the edit but the person. Remember that you get judged on your contributions, edits, and civility, no matter who or what you react upon. If you have a problem with editors, either disengage, remain civil and patient, or try one of our forms of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Fram (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies to you and Rex Germanus. Erik Warmelink (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compact

Well Erik, you are right with your revert on the form of non-equation which I did centainly wrong in the Dutch version. In the article here I found the same formula as well. Regards: D.A. Borgdorff, who is --as you possibly know-- shorthanded blocked up again because of querying Moira after your remarks. Truly yours: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seguir el pulso

Dear Sir Dimtri Nikolaj & Estimated Erik Warmelink: I herewith like to really thank you for your helpfull support in the case of my recent astonishing blocking up from further editing again. In the mean time with best regards I remain faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - MASc. by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you are welcome. Do not let them get you down. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking probably being supposed to must have so to be stopped definitely in this continuously handling of matters regarding my person. Unfortunately: in the moment can't see it differently. Esteemed regards with thanks again. As usual: D.A. Borgdorff - from 86.83.155.44 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)