User talk:Vlaemink

Talk page

Charles V

Please please, let me explain why I reverted your edit on Charles V. We agreed on that order of titles after an Edit War. If you remove that, we risk to go back to the previous version which (mistakenly) said that he ruled Belgium and the Low Countries as the Spanish Netherlands (a term actually used after Charles's abdication in favor of Philip II) and I fought hard to correct it. That is the agreement we made. "Charles V" was his title as HRE emperor and this is why the article has to start with the HRE first and then go backward. Also, mantain the reference to "Lord of the Netherlands" as "Duke of Burgundy" because that is how Charles was known in Belgium given the Burgundian Circle and the Burgundian Low Countries. The cross of burgundy, for example, originated in the Low Countries and not in Spain or Germany. And the reference to "Charles I" is already in the infobox, so there is no point in repeting it obsessively (something that we don't do for all the other titles). In short, trust me.That's how we avoid having a much worse intro for you and everybody. Thank you.

Barjimoa (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I had no idea this article had this kind of backstory. No problem, I will leave it as it is. Vlaemink (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dutch Revolt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absolutism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands South Africa Railway Company

Dear Vlaemink,

I noticed you had recently changed the article 'Netherlands South Africa Railway Company' to 'Dutch South Africa Railway Company'. From a grammatical perspective you are undoubtedly correct. However, we South Africans were never the best Dutch speakers out there, and the term 'Netherlands South Africa Railway Company' is the one used in both legal documents from the time as well as in the later academic literature. Francoisdjvr (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Low Franconian, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages East Frisian and Low Saxon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dutch angle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Double Dutch and Dutch wife.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your socks

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naramaru. Thanks. Good edit summaries are good. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for not only addressing but quickly (if only for the moment) containing the behavior of this user! These kind of semi-trolls soak up so much time and effort feeding off conflict; again, thank you for putting a stop to it. Vlaemink (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dialect continuum

added a link pointing to Middle German

German dialects

added a link pointing to Middle German

High German languages

added a link pointing to Middle German

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dialect continuum

added a link pointing to Middle German

German dialects

added a link pointing to Middle German

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dialects

Hello Vlaemink, I hope you had a good Easter. I created the articles on Nehrungisch and Werdersch dialects. They are nearly entirely written by me. Both articles have a major proportion of content from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2jm9f41f. I have some difficulty entering content on phonology from that source. On Talk:Plautdietsch_language#Mennonites,_West_Frisian_and_Plautdietsch, I raised the issue in depth of a possible Plautdietsch variety neither originating from Nehrungisch nor from Werdersch. According to Heinrich Siemens: Plautdietsch. tweeback verlag, Bonn, p. 47 There was another variety in Waldheim, Gnadenfeld and Alexanderwohl, which traced its origin from the estate of a nobleman of the name Przechowka. Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dirk (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dietrich.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect WP rules

Regarding you edit on Mulatto: I think WP:NOCONSENSUS is very clear. I suggest you seek WP:Dispute resolution. That's surely better than edit warring. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past few days you, Rsk6400, have reverted the article Mulatto to contain an unsupported claim a total of six (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) times, yet you lecturing other participants ([1], [2]) on edit-warring and the 3RR. Please be more constructive and selfreflective. Vlaemink (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is required

On your German user's page you claim to be able to contribute with a "professional level of English", yet still continue to misrepresent or misunderstand what I wrote. No, I never claimed "that mulatto/mulato is offensive across all languages"[3]. No, I never started an attack on the existence of a Dutch history and culture. No, I never claimed that the Dutch have no common history or culture ("dass die Niederländer keine gemeinsame Geschichte oder Kultur hätten")[4]. No, I didn't break WP rules on edit warring, while you did. See WP:CIR. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can staunchly claim that others have misrepresented your comments, but with all due respect, if your comments are being misunderstood on a fairly regular basis by a significant number of different editors, then perhaps you should first look more critically at your own proficiency before berating that of others. In any case, I personally would be hesitant to attack a person on their second language skills, especially if I was unconvinced by my own proficiency – which is why you preferred to communicate in German a while ago, if I recall correctly.

Again, it seems to come down to your inability or difficulties to reflect on your own behavior. As you claim to be a priest, perhaps Luke 6:41 merits some revisiting. Vlaemink (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rsk6400: but what you are doing now is throwing in personal attacks. And spreading the conflict to other Wikipedias, what to me looks like harassing. If you are pointing at WP:CIR, please make sure that you have the right translation of Ich bin ein Flame (ein niederländischsprachiger Belgier). The Banner talk 12:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: As stated above, Vlaemink wrote at Talk:Mulatto that I claimed "that mulatto/mulato is offensive across all languages"[5]. Since misrepresenting is considered incivility (see WP:STRAWMAN), and since they were also edit warring at Mulatto, I thought their talk page was the right place to protest. I didn't spread the conflict to other WPs, but I started a discussion on their German user's talk page in the hope that the problem might be solved more easily in German (my native language and the WP where they have more edits.) That was before I saw on their German user's page that they claim en-5 and de-0 language levels (which is clearly an understatement for German). Rsk6400 (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said to you before Rsk6400, by opposing (as you have done and stated numerous times) the addition of "in English" in "Its use is considered outdated and offensive in English" you are implying that the term is offensive in general and hence across languages. The fact that you did not literally write "that mulatto/mulato is offensive across all languages" is irrelevant. Vlaemink (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The media is not a reliable source for DNA

Which is why we should only use peer reviewed or reliably published academic sources. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nosism, always a guaranty for a constructive and polite discussion.

Allow me to try as well: when we trust a previous edit summary which in actuality doesn't reflect what is actually taking place, the ensuing confusion can sometimes result in small, human, mistakes. Vlaemink (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand that. It’s just a fact, the media is not a good source for science. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most apples are red when they are ripe. Vlaemink (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that comment makes this a useless discussion, I’m out of here. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sorry, based on your previous comment I thought we were just going to throw random facts at each other instead of actually reading what the other person has to say and see the human. Vlaemink (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Administrator's noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion though, you yourself reported (and thereby involved) me and nothing subsequently happened; most likely because there was no wiki-hounding, edit-warring (on my part) and/or your complaints didn't meet the criteria of the Administrators' noticeboard. Vlaemink (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your User Page: Redirect?

I wanted to offer the idea of redirecting your user page to your talk page. This is not an uncommon tactic among editors. It makes your name blue in signatures and mentions (as was your intent) but leaves the page otherwise blank, and takes users to your talk page if they click on it. Apologies if you were already aware of this, but I thought given your user page you might appreciate this. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the way it is, but thank you for the advice. Vlaemink (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Briegelaer

You have been blocked from editing User talk:Briegelaer for a period of indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Daniel Case: I'm assuming that this block on editing this Briegelaer's talk page is connected to this user reaching out to administrators concerning a supposed "outing" taking place. While I would dispute that any such thing occurred (it's probably not that obvious to a native English speaker, but in Dutch concluding that someone with the username "Briegelaer" appears to be from "Brogel" is like inferring that someone called "Bostonian" is from "Boston" in English, and the user himself has claimed to hail from this place), I will not appeal the block as I don't consider it worth the bother at this point, but I wanted to explain myself in this regard. Regards, Vlaemink (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vlaemink (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello administrators, I was recently partially blocked (from editing the single talk page of another user) by @Daniel Case:. I'm assuming a certain user made a complaint regarding "outing", though as I mentioned above, I don't think what I did can be considered "outing". The only other thing I did was asking him about using multiple accounts on English Wikipedia (which he eventually admitted he did) and, in doing this, mention the coincidence of these accounts being linked to the same village referenced in his username. I did not make any personal attacks towards this user and the Dutch arbcom referenced in the block summary, was requested by me to address this user's behavior. I did not mind not being able to edit this individuals talk page in the future and stated I wouldn't challenge it, however I recently found out that this partial block is preventing me from accessing the Wikipedia Library Project, which I use often to look for sources and references. I would therefore like this user talk page block to be lifted. If this requires me to refrain from editing this individuals talk page (on the consequence of being blocked again, or otherwise) then this is a promise I will gladly make and keep. Regards, Vlaemink (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Vlaemink (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To be clear, if this unblock request were granted under the restriction to voluntarily not edit (and I'm not guaranteeing that it will be), and you were to breach that condition, there's a reasonable chance that you might be blocked from editing entirely, rather than from a single user talk page. I believe that The Wikipedia Library can be contacted for a manual review of editors subject to blocks to see if an exception is warranted. With that in mind, would you still be seeking an unblock, with the restriction that you must refrain entirely from editing Briegelaer's talk page or in any way speculating about any personal details regarding them? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Thank you for your reply, yes I would. Not only do I think that voluntarily restricting myself from editing this particular user page would be the more practical solution, it would also accommodate my personal preference to not being listed as 'blocked' for "harassment and outing" in any way.

As I've said before, I do not think that what I wrote can be construed as outing or harassment as defined on Wikipedia in any reasonable sense. I simply wrote: The Sigma Toolforge editor interaction shows a strong correlation between you and a user by the name of Ingbiegeltje (talk · contribs). Looking at both the style of editing and the edit summaries, as well as the choice of the username, it seems very likely that you are in fact the same user. Would you care to comment on this? [6]

The user admitted the sock puppet and claimed it had been supposedly necessary because the other account had been subjected to stalking and considered the disclosure of this (again, by himself) as problematic and 'outing'.

I understand that when an administrator is told by a user that she or he has been outed, they have to act quickly and decisively, due to the possible danger involved with doxing, but in this case, the only "outing" was that of a sock puppet (admitted by the user himself), not of a person, their address, age, profession or any other identifiable characteristic.

If me promising to not edit their user page results in both my access to the Wikipedia Library being restored and my listing as a "doxer and harasser" being removed, then this would have my absolute preference. If this would include the precondition of being blocked from editing were I to break this promise, this would be acceptable to me. The only reason to edit his talk page to begin with was due to suspecting sockpuppetry -- which has since been confirmed and I think any other interactions with this user can be limited to article-talk-pages. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your response here, quite honestly, baffles me. You keep pointing out that the user in question started a new account to get away from harassment, and yet you continue to post the connection. It might not be outing, but this is seriously starting to look like harassment, and harassment is a blockable offense. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, I'm rather inclined to just put your block to sitewide right now. I asked you if you would refrain from discussing that matter, and your response was to further discuss it. If you do not realize how completely inappropriate that is, I'm very much not sure you should be editing at all. I'll give you a chance to reply here, but you are on some very thin ice at this point, so I think you should very carefully consider what you have to say. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac and Seraphimblade: English is not my first language and if that is how it came across, that was not my intention. I merely tried to show, that I did not, at any point, post any personal information about this user; with the possible exception of asking him about the sock puppet account -- if that counts.

Just to be clear, this isn't a case of a stalked user making a new account to "start over" with me subsequently willfully unmasking this: this user has been using both accounts simultaneously for about two years. I simply voiced my suspicions and he then admitted using the sock puppet. He then claimed he supposedly only did so to avoid stalking by another user entirely some two years ago -- after which I, after saying I considered this rationale to be dubious at best (as I couldn't see any signs of stalking), didn't pursue this matter further.

I certainly didn't go on to harass him by going around and spreading this confirmation of sock puppetry link nor did I re-add it to his talk page after the user removed it in any way shape or form.

I simply didn't.

Nor was it at any point my intention to do that here on my own talk page. I only repeated what I wrote here to try and show that I don't think it (having read WP:HARASSMENT multiple times since) qualifies as either harassment or outing in the ways it's described on Wikipedia and I assumed that the administrators reviewing my unblock request might find this easier than searching for the difflinks (which are still up) themselves. There was absolutely no bad faith intended.

Like I said, I just want to be able to access the Wikipedia Library again, as I use it a lot searching for easily accessible scientific reference materials and preferably not be listed in the block log as some doxer or harasser; because I'm not -- or at the very least I'm not trying to be one; I'm a serious editor with a few specialized interests.

I've already said I would agree to admins blocking me indefinitely should I ever revisit this particular users talk page, which frankly is already a lot harsher than the current penalty. If the admins would like to formally add an additional precondition in the form of me promising not to mention his above sock puppet account here again, I would of course also agree to that. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade and Primefac: I don't mean to be rude, but has been two weeks since the last reply here and I would really like to use the Wikipedia Library again. I don't think I can explain myself or my intentions any better than I did in my last post, so I would kindly ask you to make a decision on the matter. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talking.

If you're right, you should stop talking about it. If you're wrong, there's no point in talking about it. DS (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, but if I'm right, then I shouldn't be blocked (even if it's just a single page) let alone be branded a harasser. I'm will not be mentioning the matter here anymore, but I do plan to address the matter in an Arbcom request in the near future. It's not right, what has happened here. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of partial block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vlaemink (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been partially blocked from editing a particular user's talk page since June of 2023. I made an unblock request soon after, but it was procedurally declined as the two admins involved, in the end, did not resolve the matter. To give a brief overview of the situation which culminated in this partial block: This user and I were, at that time, engaged in a editing conflict on a particular linguistic subject; which mainly took place on the Dutch-language Wikipedia. After noticing a strange edit, I approached this user's talk page with a suspicion of sockpuppetry/using multiple accounts simultaneously -- which was then confirmed by this user himself. He subsequently reported me for outing [7], which resulted an indefinite block on editing his talk page for me. More details concerning the situation at the time can be found here, in my previous unblock request. I took a long pause from Wikipedia afterwards, but have been editing the English Wikipedia again over the past month, having actively returned to the German and Dutch language Wikipedias some time before that. The reason I ask to lift the partial block is the same as almost a year ago: it is preventing me from accessing the Wikipedia Library Project; which I used extensively to source my contributions and/or find new information to add to articles on the three Wikipedia projects on which I'm active. The user to whom the talk page belongs, as well as the alternative account, has not been active (neither here, nor on the Dutch language Wikipedia) since that period. My confirmed suspicion of sockpuppetry has been erased from the page by an admin [8] and I have no intention to re-add that information. If I need to make a formal promise not to edit this user's talk page in the future under penalty of a permanent block, I will do so. I kindly as an administrator to lift this partial block. Vlaemink (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock request of partial block (2)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Vlaemink (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been partially blocked from editing a particular user's talk page since June of 2023. I made an unblock request soon after, but it was procedurally declined as the two admins involved, in the end, did not resolve the matter. I made a second request on the 23th of may, but this request regrettably also resulted in a procedural decline due to no responds. To give a brief overview of the situation which culminated in this partial block: This user and I were, at that time, engaged in a editing conflict on a particular linguistic subject; which mainly took place on the Dutch-language Wikipedia. After noticing a strange edit, I approached this user's talk page with a suspicion of sockpuppetry/using multiple accounts simultaneously -- which was then confirmed by this user himself. He subsequently reported me for outing [9], which resulted an indefinite block on editing his talk page for me. More details concerning the situation at the time can be found here, in my previous unblock request. I took a long pause from Wikipedia afterwards, but have been editing the English Wikipedia again over the past month, having actively returned to the German and Dutch language Wikipedias some time before that. The reason I ask to lift the partial block is the same as almost a year ago: it is preventing me from accessing the Wikipedia Library Project; which I used extensively to source my contributions and/or find new information to add to articles on the three Wikipedia projects on which I'm active. The user to whom the talk page belongs, as well as the alternative account, has not been active (neither here, nor on the Dutch language Wikipedia) since that period. My confirmed suspicion of sockpuppetry has been erased from the page by an admin [10] and I have no intention to re-add that information. If I need to make a formal promise not to edit this user's talk page in the future under penalty of a permanent block, I will do so. I kindly as an administrator to lift this partial block. Vlaemink (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocking per the credible commitment below to avoid the behavior that led to the partial block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vlaemink, in addition to that formal promise, can you promise to refrain from mentioning Briegelaer's connections to other accounts—confirmed or suspected—on any page that isn't a WP:SPI filing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Yes, I can and will promise this. Vlaemink (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for AN

Hello Vlaemink,

I don't want to refactor your comments if you don't approve, but rather than create a separate, new section, I'd suggest instead hatting your original post, and placing your new post beneath it. You can do this by adding Template:Collapse top in front of your old post, Template:Collapse bottom at the bottom (JUST your own post, don't hat everyone else's comments), and then placing your new, shorter complaint in the original section with a note that it's attempt #2. SnowFire (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I will do this. Vlaemink (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pennsylvania Dutch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhenish Palatinate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eidt-warring in Limburgish

Templated warnings look ugly, so I'll replace this with a friendly reminder to stay calm in the face of disagreement however nasty it may be phrased by your "opponent". And also as a reminder of WP:BRD which is not a policy but definitely a good way to keep up a professional working atmosphere. –Austronesier (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: I truly admire your optimism and desire to create an objective and high quality article, but I cannot help myself from warning you: be careful because you are dealing with a very problematic user. I hope we can turn the article around in a good way, but please do remain vigilant. Vlaemink (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]