User talk:129.125.102.126

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Srebrenica[edit]

If someone reverts my edit with a comment like If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talkpage, that pseudonymous coward should not block me. --129.125.102.126 04:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the default comment for rollbacking an edit. The reversion of your POV pushing doesn’t need further explanation as it has already been discussed and you refused to stop it. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you lie by default, pseudonymous coward. --129.125.102.126 04:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop using ad hominem attacks, or I will block you from editing your own talk page. The reason I enabled the option which lets you edit it and added it to my watchlist is so you can explain why you think the page Srebrenica should have what you want it to have. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you hide behind a pseudonym, attacks against you aren't "ad hominem". --129.125.102.126 04:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That I want to preserve my anonymity in the Internet is irrelevant to the fact that they are personal attacks. If you want to convince people that the Dutch oversaw a massacre, I recommend that you start a blog or print some flyers. Again: this is not a place for activism. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged attack isn't against you (as a person, an "homo sapiens"), the attack is against the mask. Personal attacks attack a person (by threatening to kill one's father, for example); telling pseudonymous cowards that using a pseudonym is a sign of cowardice isn't a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. --129.125.102.126 05:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well there you go. Since you are not civil enough to engage in discussion without insulting others’ right to privacy you have been blocked from editing your talk page. I didn’t change the block length, so in about 23 hours you will be able to edit again. If you keep on POV pushing or insulting other editors you will be blocked for a longer period. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I push a POV, or, alternatively, I think that removing the mention of Dutch troops from the translation of the word in the Dutch language pushes a POV much harder. In the Netherlands, the presence of the Dutch troops often determines the use of the word Srebrenica. --129.125.102.126 19:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On civility, attacking others while hiding behind a pseudonym isn't exactly courageous. If you disagree, you can block me again. However, calling you a NATO propagandist was uncalled for. I apologize. As a weak excuse, I learned about the block because some other pseudonym abused an open proxy to wish me death by cancer (which was a popular attack after w:nl:Overleg gebruiker:ErikWarmelink/Archief001#Chemokuur, but faded when I refused to die; perhaps the renewed interest was to celebrate 5 years of that kind of harassment) and it hit an open nerve, because I did survive lung cancer for 5 years (and then it's somewhat considered cured), but I'll have to fight it again. --129.125.102.126 19:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Netherlands Dutch Srebrenica seldom means "a certain town in the Balkan", it almost always means "the town in the Balkan where Dutch troops assisted the largest massmurder in Europe after 1946". I can use it like My Lai or Tawergha, and people know what it means (even, perhaps especially, NATO propagandists). --129.125.102.126 04:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Dutch Srebrenica doesn't mean Srebrenica#English, it means a town where Dutch troops assisted the largest massmurder in Europe after 1946. --129.125.102.126 04:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I am not sure that you acted appropriately, I do want to say that I utterly despise NATO and I resent the bastards who still support it. However, you should have just had a parley with the editor before undoing his own undoing. It keeps a lid on the edit wars. --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I may not revert User:-sche, but it may revert me, because pseudonyms have enough pseudonymous friends. --129.125.102.126 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Seth, which I do not deny. If I felt more comfortable in this community, I could confirm my full name. That is not the point, though. You could have convinced him that he was wrong, and he could have reverted his own edit. Dude, you need to chillax and take a break for a (little) while, because I can tell that you are not in the mood to think rationally. --Æ&Œ (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why couldn't -sche/CodeCat/Ungoliant_MMDCCLXIV try to convince me with arguments instead of blocks? My name is Erik Warmelink, and I used it until some pseudonym blocked it. --129.125.102.126 05:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to know your name in real life, I reacted to "This is the discussion page for an anonymous user", which is quite untrue, considering that I am the only one in this discussion who does reveal xer full name. But even if I didn't reveal my full name, 129.125.102.126 isn't anonymous, it's named flits102-126.flits.rug.nl and it runs an ident server (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1413.txt). --129.125.102.126 19:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the reversion. While I do believe that some information about the massacre is warranted in the definition (if someone says "it's another Srebrenica" our definition doesn't help them), I don't think encyclopedic and/or POV information belongs there as it is not relevant to the meaning of the word. Srebrenica still means Srebrenica and/or the massacre that occurred there, whether you mention that the Dutch, Milošević, Tito, Stalin, the pope or America is to blame. —CodeCat 04:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And concerning the Dutch definition, that is nonsense. Do you have any citations in Dutch that show the term Srebrenica being used to imply specifically that the Dutch were to blame? Because it's certainly not how I would understand or use the term. —CodeCat 04:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/11/08/karremans-wist-wel-van-tevoren-van-massamoord-in-srebrenica/
http://www.geschiedenisbeleven.nl/Artikelen/Geschiedenis/Nederland_verantwoordelijk_voor_Srebrenica/
I didn't ask for sources that confirm that the Dutch are responsible for it. That is irrelevant here. According to WT:CFI, we require that three independent citations show that a certain term is being used with the meaning given. I very much doubt that everyone who ever says or has said "Srebrenica" in Dutch implies with that word that the Dutch are responsible. Whether the Dutch are responsible is completely irrelevant to the intended meaning of the word. It would be like adding "responsible for the invasion of Iraq" to the Bush entry, or "bombed in WW2" to Rotterdam. —CodeCat 14:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was blocked for "POV pushing" and you hinted at "POV information", which is an implicit request to refute the accusation. The second headline uses Srebrenica for "a massmurder under the eyes of Dutch troops", but not yet with the meaning "a massmurder with the assistence of Dutch troops" (though the sentence itself already has that meaning). The alleged reasons for the invasions of Iraq have changed the meaning of both "incubator" and "weapon of mass destruction" in English, to understand "pull a Powell" one needs to know what Colin Powell said at which occasion (but nowadays: what device Gray Powell lost).
  1. trouw.nl "Kok stapt op om Srebrenica" Kok (Dutch prime minister at that time) resigned because Dutch troops were supposed to protect the population; he wouldn't resign if, say, French troops would have been deployed.
  2. volkskrant.nl "Srebrenica, Holocaust, slavernij, Rawagede: heel veel spijt, weinig excuses" Srebrenica is used together with Rawagede.
  3. rijksoverheid.nl "Het kabinet diende op 16 april 2002 haar ontslag in naar aanleiding van het NIOD-rapport over Srebrenica." Comparable to "Kok stapt op om Srebrenica", is it an independent citation?
  4. nos.nl "[] omdat Pronk tegen de media had gezegd dat zijn besluit inzake de [sic] Srebrenica al vast stond."
  5. quofataferunt.com The use "Deze Dinsdagochtend wil ik aftrappen met wat aandacht voor Srebrenica...", the meaning "U weet wel die moslimenclave die door Dutchbat en de Dutchbatters moest worden beschermd maar waar alles even wat anders liep dan dat de bedoeling was..."
In the Netherlands it is much better known than elsewhere that the troops were Dutch, for someone who doesn't know that fact, it is hard to understand some of the uses of the word "Srebrenica" in Dutch. --129.125.102.126 19:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for sources that confirm that the Dutch are responsible for it. That is irrelevant here. According to WT:CFI, we require that three independent citations show that a certain term is being used with the meaning given. I very much doubt that everyone who ever says or has said "Srebrenica" in Dutch implies with that word that the Dutch are responsible. Whether the Dutch are responsible is completely irrelevant to the intended meaning of the word. It would be like adding "responsible for the invasion of Iraq" to the Bush entry, or "bombed in WW2" to Rotterdam. —CodeCat 14:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erik Warmelink is permanently blocked on de.WP, en.WP and commons, see [1], [2], [3] and [4]; he was blocked on de.WP as a global troll and "Niederländer mit übersteigertem Anti-Deutsch-Komplex". I don't believe that a permablock on one wiki should translate to a permablock on another, as blocks should be based on behavior on each wiki, but I have extended the block on this wiki to 1 week to give us time to discuss; Erik, I'd like to remove the block on your editing your talk page in a day or two so you can participate. (On an entirely different subject: du snackst ook platt?) - -sche (discuss) 07:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And over here, I might get blocked as a "Low German with an excessive anti-Dutch-complex". ;-)
Joa, ik proat n bettien Plat, niet barstends goed. Skriem?Schrieven?Schrijven kan'k t aginneet (see also User:Erik Warmelink).
Your guess (in your edit summary) isn't true. --129.125.102.126 19:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too impressed by your arguments till now (4 blocks and some accusations of POV). (Sorry, no tildes or javascript at the hospital.) — This unsigned comment was added by 92.65.7.10 (talk) at 16:39, 30 November 2012‎.

If you have a taboo against answering someone hospitalized: I'm back home. --129.125.102.126 17:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 5th block doesn't impress (or intimidate) either. --129.125.102.126 01:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More examples, not covered by the "Ministry of Truth" version:

  • volkskrant.nl "Uruzgan is Srebrenica niet", Uruzgan isn't a town in the Balkans, and it wasn't a massacre that the opponents of the mission feared
  • eenvandaag.nl "Wordt Uruzgan een nieuw Srebrenica?"
  • nrc.nl "Uruzgan een tweede Srebrenica?" and for the austriches "Dat vervolgens delen van de bevolking die gehoopt hadden op bescherming bruut werden vermoord, is zeven jaar hardnekkig genegeerd totdat het rapport van het NIOD verscheen."

You can block, but you can't enforce Newspeak on the Dutch language. --129.125.102.126 20:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ij/ei[edit]

See Wiktionary talk:About Low German/Saxon#ij/ei

As far as I know Dutch Low German does not use 'ij' to write 'ei'. Ok, "Nijverdal" but that's a loanword. Dutch uses 'ij' to write 'ei' when Low German still says 'ie' (but note 'zeiken'/'eiken'). --129.125.102.126 14:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about loanwords from Dutch? Does it use it there? —CodeCat 14:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's used in "Nijverdal", I would use it in "nijverheid" too, but I don't use that word ("industrie" is less archaic in both Dutch and Plat, "nuverheid" would be the calque).
I don't know other loanwords with 'ij', perhaps in names (like "Willemijn", but in Plat I would pronounce that as "Willemien" (little Willem), or write it as "Willemein").
Of course I try to respect the preferences of people for both the pronunciation and the spelling of their name. --129.125.102.126 01:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned 'zeiken' because the past tense 'zeek' looks like an 'ij'-verb, and even Dutch writes it with an 'ei'. In my dialect, one says "iekenholt" (oak wood) and "iekertien" (squirrel). --129.125.102.126 15:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, did you find more loanwords or is the block enough to keep your POV? I found one, bijzonder, pronounced biezonder, but that's loaned into Hollandic, not from it (or it didn't sound-shift because of the influence of the other dialects, not just Low German, but also Limburgian, Zealandic and Flemish). I pronounce Rijn as Rein (but I'm not sure whether the Hollandic or High German pronunciation feels less wrong). --129.125.102.126 00:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

On 02:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC), - -sche (discuss) wrote:

This is just getting weird.
At least we found something else we can agree on. --129.125.102.126 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You posted an address above because you've been getting threats that people know where you live?
I posted my address to show that knowing my address isn't much of a threat. Telling me to die of cancer isn't a threat at all, but it is annoying. Threatening my father is a threat, of course, but my father told me to ignore such threats, when I asked him. --129.125.102.126 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Where have you been getting such threats? I haven't seen them on Wiktionary.)
A nice question to ask off my talk page, just after you blocked me for 3 months, hero with a wonderful nickname.
See diff 18882674: "I learned about the block because some other pseudonym abused an open proxy to wish me death by cancer (which was a popular attack after w:nl:Overleg gebruiker:ErikWarmelink/Archief001#Chemokuur, but faded when I refused to die." and diff 19163548: "Don't you think that the "right to privacy" includes not being attacked from open proxies on email addresses I gave only to wikipedia.org (and wikimedia.org)?" --129.125.102.126 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, my powers of deduction are overstated; I didn't deduce that you were Erik, you said you were, after which I looked at the discussions on en.WP and de.WP and elsewhere that preceded Erik's being indef-blocked on those places, and concluded that you were indeed Erik.)
You did read. I taunted Chuck Entz who either didn't read, or used the majestic "we" in "We don't have any access to [...]". --129.125.102.126 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also going to hide the revision in which the address was just revealed.
It wasn't just revealed. Long ago, people used POTS and phonebooks. As an example, I publish http://flits102-126.flits.rug.nl/~erik/radikal/154/94.html (my IP, 129.125.102.126, my account, ~erik). It shows that more than 10 years ago, people could find my addresses, both my IP and postal address. For my ICBM address, see dig -t loc erik.selwerd.nl or w:nds-nl:Gebruker:Erik Warmelink. --129.125.102.126 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's http://selwerd.nl/~erik/radikal/154/94.html now. --80.114.178.7 20:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You accidently also deleted the link to commons:File:Map - NL - Hellendoorn - Wijk 02 Nijverdal Noord - Buurt 03 Galgeman-industrieterrein-Noord.svg which redirects to commons:File:Map - NL - Hellendoorn - Wijk 02 Nijverdal Noord - Buurt 03 Gagelman-industrieterrein-Noord.svg (Galge vs. Gagel, galg explains the "How would he (that is my father) swing?").
Please unhide. --129.125.102.126 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

129.125.102.126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason:

If SPA in "paranoiac POV-pushing SPA" is w:Wikipedia:SPA, -sche might want to say what my single purpose would be, considering luxo:129.125.102.126, luxo:ErikWarmelink and luxo:Erik Warmelink
"Thanks" to all admins for their support for forced anonymity. Merely telling the IRL address where one lives, is good for a 3-month block at en.wiktionary.org, it seems. --80.114.178.7 20:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New IP[edit]

I now work from User:80.114.178.7. --80.114.178.7 15:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user is permanently blocked[edit]

This user has been permanently blocked globally. Editing without a username, the user has also gotten himself a permanent local block. See User talk:80.114.178.7 (permalink). - -sche (discuss) 05:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.

RIR WHOIS lookup: America Europe Africa Asia-Pacific Latin America/Caribbean

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:129.125.102.126&oldid=24558633"