User talk:Kleuske

Image:Good shepherd.JPG

Hi, Kleuske. there is a debate in en:Early Christianity if the Image:Good shepherd.JPG, that you uploaded, can be considered to be from the 2nd century. If you have any info regarding that, please comment there. --Leinad-Z 21:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Temples of Bali

Bedankt voor het helpen, maar het is Category:Temples in Bali ;-) Multichill (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ik was al aan het zoeken... Lastig blijft het. De ene keer is het "of" hotsemeflots, de andere keer "in" hotsemeflots.Kleuske (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

De vuistregel is dat bij natuurlijk dingen (bergen, dat werk) of wordt gebruikt en door mensen gemaakte dingen in. Multichill (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Da's een goeie vuistregel.... Ik zal me waarschijnljk nog wel eens vergissen, maar da's menselijk. Kleuske (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Via Appia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info I took the liberty of adding a link to the Commons category in the scope to ease the comparison for the reviewers. --Myrabella (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. See also Category:Via Appia (Rome) and Category:Appia Antica (Rome). Categories are still a bit tricky, but i'm trying to clear that up. Kleuske (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose, the given location is nonsense. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  InfoFixed. Relative newcomer to geolocation and i took some things for granted i shouldn't have. Thanks for pointing it out. Kleuske (talk)
    • Thank you (and please apologize the rude word). Looks much better now, but are you sure it's the exact location? Can't really recognize the situation on the image. In which direction are we looking? --Ikar.us (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The location is approximate, but shouldn't be much further than a few hundred metres off. The picture is facing northwest, towards the city. Time of Day is around 7 in the afternoon, late April. Kleuske (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
        • The alley on the satellite image looks like a one lane tarmac street, about 4m wide. The crossing with the road 500m to the south-east confirms that it's probably the same surface. That makes me suspect that we're somehow wrong... --Ikar.us (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm absolutely sure there's no tarmac on the Via Appia Antica at all, except very near The City (instead of IV Miglio) and near the latter, it's strictly ancient pavement (see OpenStreetMap, which lists it as 'pedestrian'). I'm positive the location is near the crossing with Via Ercole Attico, since i ate there and took this picture not long afterward, along with some others. It may be a bit further up the road than indicated, but not much.
        • OK, I cancel my oppose. Still have to assess the image itself... --Ikar.us (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
          •  Info Have proposed a new location.  Question Is the ancient pavement still used as road? There are premises that seem to be accessible only via Via Appia Antica. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• I don't understand the category structure. Category:Via Appia should be parent to the others, shouldn't it? And there are categories for places located near the Via Appia among those for the street itself. This image fulfills all criteria, haven't found one that looks better.  Support. --Ikar.us (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The category structure is a mess. I've started a discussion to rectify it, but i don't want to proceed without at least some form of consensus. The proposed location looks good, b.t.w. The Appia Antica at that spot is for pedestrian/bicycle and local traffic onlyn (anlieger frei), IIRC (OpenStreetMap concurs). Kleuske (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Rudolf Olden-Presseausweis.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 17:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Olden-Ascona-1920s.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 17:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Requiescat in pace.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Please link to a relevant category or gallery as a courtesy to allow reviewers to compare this with other images in the scope. cmadler (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • My apologies, Kleuske (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
    • To clarify further, it should be a Commons gallery or category. Category:Requiescat in pace may be suitable. Please see COM:VISC for guidance on how to choose the scope for a nomination. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
      • My bad. I failed to insert ':' before 'category' above, and hence the scope wasn't visible. Category:Requiescat in pace is too wide, historically, since that encompasses at least one and a half millenium. category:Paleochristianity is too wide in another sense and includes many other types of artifacts. On balance, your suggestion may be best, lacking a more appropriate category. Kleuske (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Whenever you find that existing categories and gallery pages could be improved, you are encouraged to do so. Commons:Categories#Creating_a_new_category and Commons:Galleries may help. Gallery page scopes are encouraged because the robot that closes VIC discussions automatically marks promoted files on gallery pages. But, Requiescat in pace will suffice if you don't wish to improve categories/galleries at this time. Good luck, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support While File:Plaque histoire collège des Ecossais.jpg and File:Ainhoa Croix1.JPG are worthy of consideration, as well, I agree with the nominator. The age of this one makes it exceptional, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Please fill in the date of this inscription in the date field. HeinrichStuerzl (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Kleuske (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 05:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Trijnstel_talk 23:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Waarvoor dank... Kleuske (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Featured

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Synagoge Enschede, Venster met Griffioen.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Synagoge Enschede, Venster met Griffioen.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thanks!

Dear Kleuske I appreciate your support for the image called public drunkness. Due to the controversy around the name, I reuploaded and resubmitted it for FPC at #REDIRECT[[1]]. If you could vote on the new one I would appreciate it. Regards, --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit

Dear Kleuske, I took artistic liberty to edit your recent upload. I think that it is a powerful, simple and symbolic image, and the spirit of my edit springs from that. Regards... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I took the artistic liberty to revert it to the original version. You're free to upload your own version, but i nominated mine, not yours. It isn't artistic, but very much as is, which reflects the spirit of the place the best. The symmetry is broken very much on purpose, by the way. It is not intended to be a nice, soothing, aesthetically pleasing picture. Kleuske (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

latin epigraphy

Hello, I had your message, and do apologize for my english if it's not good. What do I need to discuss ? and why for ? whom with ? Latin epigraphy is a big problem on Commons, before, you had no category, and no file to find what to take with your camera, now, you find anything you want, and you know what is to be done so that Commons will have a picture corresponding to one nomenclature for people into latin epigraphy. What's the problem ? Nonopoly (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Right at the moment, people must look for any pictures we do have. If one or two images were missing, a dummy would not be a problem. A page with mainly dummies and only a handful of useful images is just not very... well... useful. There are quite a lot of resources listing the complete CIL, replicating it here, minus the texts, serves no purpose whatsoever and makes looking for pictures we do have very frustrating. Kleuske (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kleuske and Nonopoly. Sorry for my english to. Well, I don't have made my opinion about this change, even if the argument of Kleuske is right : the page is really big like that and hard to work on it. Remember that this page is just a presentation of Commons, is not a category. Thats mean is supplementary work tho have it up-to-date... Piero (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@ Kleuske : I've never found any resource on Internet with complete medias corresponding to CIL. Of course, you have mainly CIL site (really poor about pictures, even text) and fore exemple [www.oracle-vm.ku-eichstaett.de] for texts and some pitcures, but, they don't have all the pictures. And of course, no even not a single pic under Creative Commons licence. The job we're doing here is different. Of course, you can find many pictures of latin epigraphy on Internet, but the biggest difference is that on Commons, you can use them under licence. I noticed on french Wikipedia, where I'm a sysop, when you create a kind of a frame, that make people work on the subject. If I create a frame with all the CIL references, I guess some people will be interested in filling blanks. Don't you think so ? Nonopoly (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As to CIL, see uni-heidelberg.de. Really useful and improved in recent times. It provides a lot of pictures, including a few of ours, since i wrote them an email pointing out we have a quite substantial set, while, quid pro quo, asking them to help me identify an inscription.

I do not think that providing dummies will encourage anyone. They will, i think, diminish interest in the CIL pages, since most of the content is rubbish. Providing mere CIL-numbers can hardly be an encouragement to anyone, since there's no indication of what pictures exactly anyone should be taking. I don't know, offhand, what CIL XVII² 628 is supposed to say or where to find it, which does not encourage me to take my camera and get an image. The same goes for the other dummies, some of which may not even be on display, but stored in some museums archive inaccesible to us or our dear contributors.

So this leaves us with pages filled (largely) with dummies contributing no information at all. Hardly useful, and hence a bad idea. Kleuske (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And I think it's a good idea. So what ? Are you kidding when you say that it diminishes interest ? Before, there were no category and empty pages. Nothing in fact. Have you done something for this pages ? almost nothing. I provide places where latin epigraphy for each reference and then perhaps ask people to take pictures. So what is your problem ? I hva written to both Lyon and Saint-Romain-en-Gal museums (CIL XIII 1650-3000...) to take pictures of epigraphy non-allowed to people. I'm just expecting a answer quite soon and I'm almost sure it's would be ok. If anyone does the same thing, it coule be quite easy. It's always easier to criticize than accept difference in the way of thinking. Nonopoly (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Shall we discuss the content of the pages or would you rather engage in a pissing context about who contributed what? If the latter, i've contributed a few images (I'm rather fond of this one for its historical significance and because it was a difficult shot (through glass), this, this, this and this one, but this one takes the biscuit), researched a few others and created the page in the first place. Not that i consider that a big deal, but i'd like you to consider my arguments, as i have considered yours.

I am most certainly not kidding about anything. A page largely filled with "missing images" is a bad idea and i do not think it will encourage anyone to go looking for any specific inscription. Kleuske (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There is one thing you don't answer : what do you think about providing pics under Creative Commons licence, whate ever the way you do it. I'm trying to do it my way, and one the way to reach this goal is to create a frame. For example, if you first create a frame like I did for miliarias, and add the place there are at the moment, you can ask people to go where there are to take pictures. Of course, if you don't know where there are, it's a problem, but if you know it, it can work. I know it's a good idea. For example, on french Wikipédia, we have created lists of monuments without pics, articles (like composers without pic)...and what happened ? A increasing filling of blanks, and people have added pic they could find easily. You can't say it's a bad idea. It works. Nonopoly (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think providing images under free licences is wonderful, hence i tend to frequently do so. Just to tease you here's another from my private collection. I have more, I just haven't gotten around to catalogueing all of them. I also think that it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that a) CIL is numbered sequentially (largely) and b) between CIL A, B and CIL A, B+2 one inscription is missing. Also I think people perusing the CIL pages aren't stoopid and can be trusted to figure that out on their own. Kleuske (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You say "it works". I say "where's the evidence?" I'm rather disinclined to take your word for it. Kleuske (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wish you a Merry Christmas and a very very happy new year. -- Joydeep _Talk 18:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Likewise... Kleuske (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Cercenasco --> Vigone

You're right, maybe because the page I provided the link was a discussion tied to the picture and not to the main page devoted to Cercenasco. I geuess that, when I modified the page about Cercenasco village erasing the link to the picture, also the discussion page tied to the picture disappeared. See http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cercenasco&action=history. Thanks anyway,--F Ceragioli (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Meripilus giganteus

At your work - File:Meripilus giganteus, Germany, 2011.jpg : It is not a Laetiporus sulphureus File:Laetiporus sulphureus JPG01.jpg, maybe? I.Sáček, senior (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite possible. I'm no expert in mushrooms and just named it to my best knowledge. If I'm mistaken, feel (very) free to correct it. 12:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not a expert too. But I see your picture and other examples a see some differences. Maybe is it very young Meripilus giganteus, but probably is it Laetiporus sulphureus. Thanks for answer. Nice picture. --I.Sáček, senior (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC) I now changing the category. I have no doubts yet.I.Sáček, senior (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've requested a namechange, too, to keep things in sync. Kleuske (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Grand Prismatic Spring

Hi Kleuske.

Thanks for you review. I've edited out the branch of the dead tree on my picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Grand_Prismatic_Spring.jpg

--Clément Bardot (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Streisand Estate.jpg/2

Please revisit Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Streisand Estate.jpg/2, as there is an ALT proposed by Alchemist-hp which edited the image to improve its quality, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Challenge

Thanks for entering the photo challenge. Unfortunately the photos have to be uploaded to Commons during the challenge period, not before. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Ok. Too bad. Kleuske (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I liked it. -- Colin (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons Photo Challenge January 2014

Thank-you for participating in Commons:Photo challenge! Come to the talk page to discuss and help organise this new project.

The December 2013 themes will close for submissions this weekend and be ready for voting from Monday 6th January: Coloured light and Silhouette.

For January 2014 there are two themes: A bunch of stuff and January. I hope you are keen to participate. Please read the theme descriptions for full submission rules on each theme. -- Colin (talk)

Image:Martijn J. Adelmund_Grim.JPG

Hoi Kleuske, De auteursfoto van Martijn Adelmund is kort na uploaden weer verwijderd. Jammer, want ik heb toestemming van de fotograaf (Jelle Mollema) - mits zijn naam vermeld wordt - en ook van de auteur (mijn man). Als ik hem opnieuw upload wordt hij nu verwijderd. Kan deze restrictie er af? Dit is toch echt de officiele foto. Groet, Catalijn

Nee. Kleuske (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! What's the point.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

File:Olli cartoon.jpg

Hi, please provide a rationale for your copyvio-tagging. --Túrelio (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a copyright violation? The image is the property of the creator, and AFAICS, there's not a shred of any license in sight... Kleuske (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Portrait of Flamines Musée du Louvre.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Very good image. But the scope is too broad. I propose the following scope: Head of [[:Category:Flamines|Flamines]] ''Musée du Louvre''. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I hate to be a contrarian, but that would restrict the scope to exactly one image (this one), which seems to defeat the purpose. "Portraits/Busts of Flamines"? Kleuske (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Portrait of [[:Category:Flamines|Flamines]] ''Musée du Louvre''. Could be admissible --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Galadriel by Michael C Hayes.jpg ‎

Hello,
The author of this drawing, Michael C. Hayes, gave his permission and will send a confirmation email to Wikimedia Commons (Ticket#2015122910019448).
Best regards. Guise (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Then please state that on that page. Mind reading and general divining are not my strong points. Kleuske (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know the corresponding message template, and don't forget another WP rule : civility. Thanks. Best regards. Guise

Hello again. Michael C. Hayes finally prefered a non-commercial & no-derivatives license. I'm going to explain to him than we cannot use his work then. Pity... But I respect his choice. Could you suppress the file, please ? Thanks ! Regards. Guise

I have, quite civilly, explained that a) I do not read minds and b) I cannot divine information that wasn't there. Moreover, I cannot "suppress" anything or anyone on this website. Kleuske (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

My bad then. No offense ! Guise ;-)

Waarom

Hallo Kleuske, waarom deze move? Lotje (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Een grondig en algeheel gebrek aan vertrouwen in de nederlandstalige Wikipedia gemeenschap, meer specifiek

• Het gebrek aan zelfreinigend vermogen zodat enkelen het project jarenlang ongehinderd kunnen frustreren
• Een sterke voorkeur voor toon boven inhoud
• Na vijftien jaar is de gemeenschap niet in staat gebleken om zelfs maar de meest elementaire (bronvermelding, relevantie-criteria, etc) dingen te regelen. Zonder relevantie-criteria en eis tot bronvermelding uit betrouwbare bronnen is de nederlandstalige Wikipedia geen encyclopedie, maar een website met weetjes en ideetjes en is elke verwijdering (of niet) van een genomineerd artikel afhankelijk van hoe de mod-van-dienst de pet staat, zonder dat die mod ergens houvast aan heeft.
• De "overlegcultuur" is van een bedroevend niveau, het "winnen" wordt veel belangrijker geacht dan het belang van project.
• De werksfeer is abominabel. Ik ben genoeg afgezeikt voor zogenoemde "collegae".

Case in point, zoals de Amerikanen zeggen. In dit "overleg" vind je alle redenen waarom ik mijn biezen heb gepakt, de pijp aan Maarten heb gegeven, het stof van mijn schoenen heb geschud en mijn hielen gelicht. Lees en huiver.

Als ik WP:AGF niet meer in de praktijk kan brengen, wordt het hoog tijd te vertrekken.

Het gebrek aan vertrouwen geldt overigens voor de gemeenschap als geheel, niet voor individuele Wikipedianen, hoewel het oordeel gemengd is, moet ik erbij zeggen. Kleuske (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ach Kleuske, je verwoordt hier letterlijk wat mijn bevindingen zijn en dat is nu net waar ik blijf op hameren. Zonder veel woorden de vinger(s) op de etterende wonden leggen. Neem nu bv. overleg Erik Zachte waar ik het probleem met Museum Boerhaave op de en:wikipedia in de spreekwoordelijke verf probeerde te zetten. Is het niet hartverwarmend dat iemand als Erik Zachte mij hoffelijk en vriendelijk bejegend, en dat een gebruiker als Brimz grof, onbeleefd is en liegt), of Natuur12 --> mij van bronvervalsing beschuldigt? Er moet dringend, heel dringend iets gebeuren daar op de nl:wikipedia. Men is zich wel degelijk bewust van bepaalde feiten... Ik van mijn kant blijf mijn steentje bijdragen door tegen de schenen te blijven schoppen en ben vooralsnog niet zinnens op te geven. Een mens moet het ganse plaatje bekijken dan komt het wel goed. En de boer die ploegde voort . Toegenegen Lotje (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

COM:AN/B

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#File:Castillia.jpg and User:Santa maya. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Bidgee (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It was rapidly becoming a cross-wiki pain in the pars posterior. Kleuske (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I can only imagine the headaches it was causing. :/ Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

<snigger> I was thinking of the other end, but the result is the same. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Fijn ...

... om je weer eens te zien opduiken. Veel van wat je twee kopjes hoger aansnijdt is niet veranderd, maar The Banner is weg, dat scheelt al enorm – en buiten nl:wiki is ook genoeg te doen. Groet, Wutsje 16:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

He, Wutsje. Blij je weer eens te spreken. Ik heb het druk op en.wiki, waar ik plezier an beleef, want er is een grotere en meer internationale gemeenschap. The Banner is erachter gekomen dat men daar zijn gedrag niet pikt en is zowaar een behoorlijk nuttige bijdrager geworden. De wonderen zijn de wereld nog niet uit, zullen we maar zeggen. Kleuske (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)