User talk:PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs)

PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs), you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs)! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Steve B

Hello, PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs),

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Steve B should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve B .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crime

Please read WP:PERPETRATOR.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, wanted to let you know

You mentioned that you're an activist, and while your cause is very good - per WP:NOTADVOCACY, Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". Your recent articles and edits suggest you feel very strongly about the topic and you may have a conflict of interest. You can contribute to articles you feel strongly about, but please refrain from making bold statements, using strong and suggestive language, and trying to sway opinions with your articles. Specifically, I want to point out a few cases I've noticed:

The Jos B article - It has since been removed. As was explained to you, he's not a notable figure.
The Steve B article - Its' removal is being discussed. He's also not a notable figure.
Julie Van Espen - She's also not a notable figure. The good news is, from my research, it seems her murder may be a notable event! You can make an article about that, but please keep it neutral.
You Know Me Movement - This is not a notable movement. It's a trending hashtag. For now. I plan on suggesting it for deletion.

Cheers, Alex.osheter (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex.osheter, it's fine to give constructive criticism, but suggesting that there is a conflict of interest while I objectively wrote all articles from a neutral point of view, provided resources and quotes with resources (and I provided many of them, all news articles), is framing. Everything I wrote in the articles came from other resources - police statements, facts from the the news - and all language was not coloured. I can be passionate about subjects and write them objectively as well, and saying 'please don't do' while I have not done so, is not a constructive way of criticism. Having an interest in a specific topic and providing resources on it and factual information, does not showcase a conflict of interest. I provided original work in bioluminescence articles as well and just because I like those topics doesn't mean there's a conflict of interest. I clearly stated my background on my user page to make sure it was known, and wrote all articles objectively, to show that regardless of my activistic work, there isn't a conflict of interest concerning the writing, which cannot be found in the writing as well.

On the You Know Me Movement: This hashtag campaign is a second wave of a previous movement that already started in 2015. Claiming it's just a trending hashtag and not a movement while it's gone over the world already (they even wrote about it on Dutch state news here) and has a previous similar movement, and the massive impact the movement is having, seems ridiculous. The literal definition of movement is 'a change or development' and 'a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.' Stating it's not a movement is inaccurate based on the definitions of movement, and it shows on your part potentially bias towards the movement, and the person who added the article. Do you have a conflict of interest maybe when it comes to suggesting deletion of specifically the You Know Me Movement? Because I objectively wrote it, and you seem to specifically mention any writing I did related to women's rights, crimes against women, and the male offenders in these situation, and you are attempting to frame my writing, while it was objectively written.

PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs) (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a supporter here. The best place to have an impact discussing is the section for this article on the Delete page.Dogru144 (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dogru144 Thank you! To add to the above, maybe Alex.osheter should think twice before making comments such as 'She's also not a notable figure. The good news is, from my research, it seems her murder may be a notable event! You can make an article about that, but please keep it neutral'. A little more respect when talking about women who were murdered would suit you Alex. PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs) (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Noa Pothoven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stigma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Winnen of leren by Noa Pothoven.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Winnen of leren by Noa Pothoven.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Winnen of leren by Noa Pothoven.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Winnen of leren by Noa Pothoven.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

friendly reminder

No matter how justified you may be in objecting to what someone else has written about you, anything on-wiki that suggests you would pursue the matter off-wiki is considered a violation of WP:NLT. This is generally interpreted very broadly, and some of what you posted about a third party on my talk page might be so interpreted. It's a common way of abusing WP process for A to bring about an exchange which frustrates B into doing something we consider inexcusable. B is then blocked, and A wins. Be careful not to fall into the trap. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice DGG, I appreciate it. I've been dealing with constant harassment 24/7 (as you can probably tell if you search for my name in Google News) and I can't believe it has extended to here - this felt like a safe place. I do know people try to provoke me constantly, and your reminder is honestly appreciated. I'll keep it in mind and am going to distance myself from this discussion because frankly it's not good for my mental health to have a community I enjoy ruined like this. I hope you can look into what's going on - I just noticed this specific user has also tried to undo edits (and reverted it) by the user who contributed to the page about me and who called out their bullshit, and they did so on a completely different page. It almost seems like they want to let the user (and maybe me) who contributed factually and well sourced to the page about me, subtly know they are watching the people who contributed to that page.. This scares me because it is a somewhat similar pattern my abuser (a public person) has done too of which there is evidence. My abuser would 'let me know' he was watching me or people who associated with me in very subtle ways. For example, he would 'follow' (with his public person account) a friend of mine on Twitter; a subtle way to let me know he 'watches' me and people around me or anyone associating with me in some way. I won't link to it here, but if you search online for my blog, the evidence is shown in a post there. At any rate - thanks for the reminder.