User talk:Marinka van Dam

Cut and Paste / MOS / duplicate information
Usually if there is a need to have 'paralell information' at all, it is more having a 'link' in one article to go to the other... simply copying what is in another article is not encouraged - per WP:MOS. Do not be suprised if you do a 'cut and paste' that your are reverted and messaged over such an action. satusuro 12:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please point me to the relevant section of WP:MOS. I'm unable to find a reference to "duplicate information" there. I'm not surprised to see you have made the revert. In the meantime I have provided a "See also" link. Should you be unable to satisfy me that the situation is actually as you describe it I shall revert to the edit I made. The situation with Australian child sex sex tourists targetting Indonesia is both national and specific to Bali as my source makes clear. It's plainly notable for both articles, multiply sourced. Marinka van Dam (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see another editor has reintroduced an expanded "Sex tourism" section, and that is acceptable to me. Thank you for your time. Marinka van Dam (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Block
Well, well, I've been blocked as sock puppet of User:Coat of Many Colours. Hardly. For a start I live in Leeds (so that makes two of us editing at Featured Pictures ), whereas she struggles on in sunny old Wales (when she's not off recruiting people for her special little secret society or whatever it is she does on her frequent trips abroad). As for my starting paedophile edit, that was prompted by an newspaper item a few days before. I made it because of course I knew of Coat's principled stand on that ghastly painting.

I had planned a series of edits on Indonesian textiles, a hobby. Shan't now.

What prompts this really I don't doubt is the disquiet I raised over User:Crisco 1492's upload of a high resolution licensed image from the Mauritshuis, something he must be have been aware of doing it now transpires as Coat in fact had earlier in the year uploaded the medium resolution version made available for download by the museum and he copied over her notes (and incidentally that it was the licensed image he uploaded would have been passed over by me, because I thought it was a bona fide upload, had it not been for C's imperious pontification). It's not a copyright issue, granted, but it is a contractual issue. I shall raise that with the Mauritshuis and at Commons. It's such bad faith because they went to such trouble making their beautiful images available at medium resolution.

I shall continue to edit at work, as I have done for some years. Good luck with blocking that (I might just block you back). That's about a hundred miles a wee bit up and to the left of where you think I am, by the way (fun watching that). Kind regards (you not) to your mate Corbett, another near neighbour. He's right about this being a cult. I mean really you have no idea. Marinka van Dam (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Coat's principled stand is not unlike the Sextet's either. Your objections are noted, as are your deliberate attempts to evade scrutiny, and I'm sure you understand that the latter weigh a bit more heavily than the former. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bugger Sextet (hard up against a wall the way he likes it ...). I must say for a supposedly über-brilliant mathematician he seems curiously challenged by what exactly a prime number is, but then I suppose they all are.
 * If I may say so, one does have to make a bit of an effort to avoid unwelcome scrutiny by your editors. Marinka van Dam (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to give you a platform to make more abusive comments. I've revoked your access to this page. See WP:UTRS if you wish to challenge any decisions made here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)