Welcome!
Hello, JanDeFietser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Slp1 (
talk)
13:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jan Thanks for you addition to the polytechnique article. I've removed it for now, because the source you gave (and all the others out there) say that she was shot despite the fact that she said they weren't feminists. I hope you understand.-- Slp1 ( talk) 13:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Rereading the source I get the impression that you are right. Thanks. -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 13:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all. I appreciate your openness to checking!! Anyway, like I said, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy editing here. Have a good weekend! -- Slp1 ( talk) 13:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi I have reverted your addition to Cameron, I feel it is a news story not worthy of inclusion, I am available to discuss it on his talkpage if you want, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, JanDeFietser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions especially what you did for Bahai Faith, Flemish and Dutch language, 3 articles that are of personal appeal. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Bedankdt..-- Buster7 ( talk) 22:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi again Jan, I have now also removed your edit here reporting the announcement of a protest in 2010, please try to consider that this is an encyclopedia and a long term viewpoint, if the protest becomes notable after it happens then we can add comments about it. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
How is his name spelled? In the article you use Staffan de Mistura! Please clarify. Thanks. PamD ( talk) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Gelukkig Kerstfeest and Niewjaar.....-- Buster7 ( talk) 12:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you're adding too much Afghanistan's political information into Hamid Karzai article. I suggest you take most of that info and add it into Politics of Afghanistan.-- 119.73.0.171 ( talk) 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The September 2009 NZ Herald article says "the elite troops had arrived in Afghanistan". So they arrived there on or before Sep 21, 2009.
Their location at Kabul was disclosed in October 2009, per the stuff.co.nz article
You wrote: "In December 2009, these troops arrived in Afghanistan"
Please go back and remove "December 2009", it is erroneous. XLerate ( talk) 10:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Please remember to add categories to new pages.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 04:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, we don't really need multiple sources for one statement. Also, have you seen {{ cite web}}? fetch comms ☛ 20:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jan,
I think that we either need to describe in more detail who has made the assertion that the explosive matches that used by Pakistans ISI, or maybe remove the information altogether. The article (it's not a report) in The Daily Beast is written by an author who appears to be sympathetic to Russia and has connection to Russian media and probably to the Russian intelligence community. He may well have his own agenda. I don't think that The Daily Beast can be used for claims that appear to be extraordinary (i.e. a claim hinting at the direct involvement of Pakistans intelligence agency in the attack. Please let me know how you think about this.
Regards. Cs32en 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your insertion of the Netherlands legitimacy section into Multi-National Force Iraq. I believe it's misplaced there, as that page deals with the formal military command in 2004-2009, not the legality of the Iraq invasion itself. I've moved the section to Legality of the Iraq War#Netherlands, which I believe is a more appropriate placing. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Marjah (town). Thanks -- Joshdboz ( talk) 04:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message on my talk page, Jan (I replied briefly there too) and for highlighting the book on your blog. All such mentions are very welcome.
I see you're a Wikipedian cyclist. I fear I can hardly claim to belong to that category. But I cycle once a year -- on the day when our whole village goes out on the road -- and each year my ageing bicycle gets a round of laughs. I'd put it somewhere between 60 and 70 years old, and still running well (downhill at least). And rew D alby 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Nou Jan, dat is toch weer fraai--daar zit je dan zonder regering! Sterkte ermee! En niet allemaal voor Wilders gaan stemmen, alsjeblieft. Groeten, Drmies ( talk) 05:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
-- HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know Wiki to well, but you can update her page now. See my notes on the MS talk page. -- Anrkist ( User talk:Anrkist) 21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.137.55 ( talk)
I believe that two plus two equals four. Is mathematics then a religion? You are reading too much into a common usage. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Right now your contribution would qualify as wp:OR because you've provide no references to back up your edit. Could you provide citations? And what does this mean, at the end of your edit, "QuickiWiki Look Up" Thanks 842U ( talk) 12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on International Freedom Alliance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Kudpung (
talk)
04:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. T. Canens ( talk) 15:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(removed after hint of other user) -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 18:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
(removed after hint of other user) -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 18:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like your best bet (if you wish) to resolve the problems you have been having on nl.wiki would be to launch a request for comment at Meta-Wiki. (From the MW page) "It (meta wiki RfC's) can also be used for unresolved conflicts or other issues in regards to other Wikimedia projects if discussion on the relevant project has not been successful." I doubt you would find anyone here on the en.wiki who can help you on nl.wiki, your best bet would be over at Meta Wiki. Best of luck, Mauler90 talk 21:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO forget about those guys at NL, you are doing fine here and contributing, let go the page let it be deleted and move on editing here, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Jan, I am unsure what is going on but this is the english wikipedia and large swathes of foreign discussion should not be going on here. Are things ok? Off2riorob ( talk) 15:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dutch_Wikipedia_turmoil. Thank you. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. This edit, after this ANI thread is too much. I've blocked you for a week. Take your damn dispute to meta, back to nl.wiki, off to the blogosphere - I really don't care. Anywhere but here. TFOWR 18:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock}}
tag, described in your block notice, to request that another admin consider your block. I've considered it, and decided not to change or lift the block myself. Maybe another admin will think differently.
TFOWR
19:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Remarkable: This Dutch weblog, in a just published article full of untruths about me and repeating those false accusations of Cumulus and Peter b on the Dutch Wikipedia about "slander" (that there was not) and also the false accusations of "legal threat" (that there was neither), boasts that the current blocking of Faust and me is a "success" of a lobby of Dutch Wikipedians. That seems an interesting challenge by some mediocre figures. -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 20:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC) ὁ
Jan, did you see the decision at the noticeboard or were you notified about the decision that was (more or less) ..you and these other people are not to mention the dutch issue here at all? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
"All parties are urged to stop discussing IMMEDIATELY the conflicts of the Dutch Wikipedia, as well as all the fallout resulting from that discussion on the English Wikipedia. Continuing this discussing in ANY form, even on ANI or amongst eacho ther on user talk pages, will result in immediate blocking for a period of a week".
Suggested parties would be:
* User:JanDeFietser * User:Faust * USer:JZ85 * User:Theobald Tiger * User:MoiraMoira * User:Hazardous Matt * User:Grimbeert * User:TheDJ
* Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground * Wikipedia:No personal attacks * Wikipedia:Civility
Any further continuance of this beyond this point, anywhere in Wikipedia, will result in indefinite revocation of editing privileges here at the English Wikipedia. This includes any attempts to gloat or have the last word. This ends. Now. This doesn't belong here; we don't want this here; we're not going to have this here; and continued attempts to bring this here will result in summary ejection from the project forthwith.
Hi Jan,
I think you may have gotten into trouble by accident by invoking the NL-Wiki dispute indirectly. But note that even a sentence like e.g.: "This looks like NL-Wiki here" which does not explicitely raise any actual content of the dispute, can trigger a discussion that does raise the actual content. That's why the restriction not to discuss the dispute has to be followed in a ridiculously strict sense. I think if you agree to stick to this restriction, you'll be unblocked. Count Iblis ( talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to say on Jan's behalf that the remark he made on my behalf turned out to be true (and The DJ's account of things too hastily made). Perhaps the block should be lifted because of that? -- Faust ( talk) 06:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Count Iblis, I think the block should be lifted because he was speaking on my behalf and pointing out that my block was unjustified. Seeing as my block has been lifted because it was unjustified, at the very least we can say that he was right in saying so. The block of Jan therefore seems unjustified as well. -- Faust ( talk) 17:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, that is strange. In the (Dutch) law concerning slander it is not illegal to defend yourself against slander, even though that may in itself be slanderous. So, catch 22 does not apply there. I believe the same thing applies to all western countries on the basis of the freedom of person (universal rights of man). Perhaps we should find the appropriate wikipedia guideline and make a mention of this, to prevent future situations like this one for everybody? -- Faust ( talk) 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jan, the reason you are blocked was under the assumption of foul play in self defense: referaals to catch 22 were made and that is why you were blocked. This would in fact be inlawfull according to the above criminal code. Wikipedia has different guidelines, but I suppose we could (and maybe should) make an argument for adding the denial of catch 22. It seems a more than reasonable idea that would in fact counteract misuse of admin tools, as well as miscarriage of admins and facilitate the easier deduction of the real wrongdoers in question. I would like to add that this migt be seen as fallout, however, it seems that a critical analysis of the wikipedia guidelines is in order and should never be punished by a block as long as it is sincere. And this is. -- Faust ( talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Lets drop it here. I'll simply move to an examination of the guidelines and see what I can do. -- Faust ( talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, especially the 'indien hij dit bewijs niet levert'. Thanks! -- Faust ( talk) 23:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
JanDeFietser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
After a pause, I request a lift or shortening of the block. There was NO infringement, NO continuing of the nl.wiki dispute from my side after the message of Uncle G. This blocking is NOT justified at all by the facts. My explanation for what happened when user Faust was blocked turned out completely right. After the lies of JZ85 on 23rd July, another Dutch user, Grimbeert, arrived on 25th July, only to launch here the false accusations that I had to endure as well on the Dutch Wikipedia without being allowed to defend myself against these false accusations and stir up the so called "Dutch drama". See the user history of Grimbeert. Acting that way is not sincere and not in good faith. By this machiavellian machination here on the English Wikipedia, I was also denied defence against the false accusations of JZ85 - as well as his ridiculous exaggerations: according to him the Dutch Wikipedia has only 34 editors? (my wikimail was blocked in September after I adressed only 17 users about the tragic failure of NLArbcom...). In the meantime on the weblog Wiki-'Safe' (see above and the remark of Count Iblis) an ominous message appeared in which was boasted about a succesful "lobby" to have me blocked on the English Wikipedia. That message is filled with the same false accusations to which I was not allowed to defend myself on the Dutch Wikipedia. "Refugees" from the Dutch Wikipedia should not be confronted here on the English Wikipedia with the same sort of scenes.
Decline reason:
WP:NOTTHEM. Besides, this unblock request appears to confirm the reason for your block, i.e., disruptively continuing disputes from nlwiki on this Wikipedia. Sandstein 19:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
JanDeFietser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This is not continuing a dispute from the Dutch Wikipedia but pleading that such scenes should kept at bay here
Decline reason:
No, it's pretty clear that reading the section above this one that you are continuing those disputes. We don't want those arguments here - this has been explained to you and you persisted with your edits. TN X Man 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
I'll leave the request for another admin, but I note that the easiest way to stop a dispute from any other wikipedia project from coming here would be to NOT mention that project, NOT discuss it in oblique terms (as with "certain other smaller project", for example) and to avoid all discussion of the issue itself. Yet I keep seeing it brought up here, and I can't understand why. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello JanDeFietser! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot notifying you on behalf of the
the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
847 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 01:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Chloé Graftiaux requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
ww2censor (
talk)
15:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Jan,
On Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Text_on_User:JanDeFietser I've asked the administrators to look into the dutch text on your user page.
Mvg, NL_Bas ( talk) 18:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Sandstein
20:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)This concerns the legal threats you made here. Sandstein 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
JanDeFietser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is no legal threat at all: look before you leap. Unblock. -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You asked the other user to discuss the matter with you in court. You are entirely in your rights to do so; please wait to request unblock until after the two of you have met in court to settle the matter. If you decide not to meet him in court after all, feel free to request unblock, but make sure it's very clear that you are not now seeking legal action, and have no plans to seek legal action in the future. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 21:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
In addition to the legal threat, which is the reason for the block, I don't understand how bringing disputes from other wikis here helps to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 21:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Resuming: The true spirit of Wikipedia is that it is a free encyclopedia, and not a forum for cyberpesting, haunting or stalking. So please be wise, and unblock. If JanDeFietser would ever misbehave here he always can be critizised on valid arguments or eventually be blocked again if he disrupts this wiki. With high regards, Tjako ( talk) 22:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of this case is consistent with what Tjako wrote here. From what I read about this issue, there exists a real life dispute with legal dimensions dating back to the 1990s. Jan has been targeted on the Dutch Wikipedia by some editors who are involved in that real life dispute. Then I do think we can ask Jan not to react to any provocations himself here on Wikipedia. Instead, he should contact an Admin whenever he feels provoked by someone about these sensitive non-Wikipedia issues. That Admin can then take appropriate measures. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If we read this carefully we can see that:
JanDeFietser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I certainly did NOT "ask the other user to discuss the matter with me in court" - read carefully what I wrote exactly: I wrote that the issue should be discussed elsewhere, but not on the English Wikipedia, conform the decision of Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 ": you do not know the meaning of the expression "for that matter"? The idiom "for that matter" can be replaced by 'in fact' or 'actually': this means that I would not object or prevent him going to court, if Basvb really would be sincerely convinced that he is "accused falsely" (I will refrain from a material comment on this sly complaint of Basvb, who is the person who concocted the absurd ban on the Dutch wiki on November 6th 2009, that is still pending now after more than 9 months, while I cannot address the NL-Arbcom because my email is blocked..). That is NO "legal threat" at all! The English wiki nor its admins should not make itself completely ridiculous by upholding an overhaste reaction
Decline reason:
Until you clearly and unambiguously indicate that you do not intend to take these matters to court, your editing privileges cannot be reinstated. Please either indicate this without ambiguity and stop arguing that you said it at all, or wait until legal proceedings conclude. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
Hello, JanDeFietser, this is in reply to your e-mail. Your personal information and professional qualifications are of no interest to me, and neither is your dispute with others. What matters to me is that you disrupt this encyclopedia by making legal threats ("you even committed a criminal act with your threats on November 6th (art. 284 Sr)", "[your] criminal behavior", "or defend your behaviour ... in court" [1]), and by continuing a real-world and/or Dutch Wikipedia dispute on this Wikipedia ( [2], [3]), even after the community clearly told you to drop it. I will not unblock you until the legal threat is unambiguously withdrawn, as per the declining admins above, and I am entirely convinced that you will stop pursuing that dispute here, as per Johnuniq above. Sandstein 08:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This is in reply to your following e-mail, which I reproduce here as per my e-mail policy on my user page:
I see that you do not understand the legla intricacies of the situation: if Basvb thinks that I accuse him falsely, HE is the one that has to go to court. Not me. And I made alreday clear that I do not object against it (whic is no "legal threat" at all), because I am confident that my words were and are completely legitimate. Can you urge Basvb to start the proceedings against me as soon as possible, to shorten this very strange block on the English wiki? I can give Basvb my full address, no problem. I think it is reasonable that he has to start his proceedings in two weeks. Otherwise this peculiar block on the English wiki should be lifted immediately.
This makes clear that you still believe that the dispute between you and the other user requires legal action, even if initiated by the other user, to resolve. Moreover, you make clear you do not intend to cease making accusations against the other user on en.wiki until they take legal action against you. This is false. We require you to remove your accusations against others not because these accusations are either wrong or false (we neither know nor care about that), but because you are not allowed to misuse this Wikipedia as a forum for your grievances unrelated to this Wikipedia. As has been explained above, you are not allowed to edit this Wikipedia as long as you insist on attempting to do so, and as long as you make legal threats, which is what this amounts to. Your unblock request is declined and any future e-mails by you will not be answered. You may still appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee, see WP:BASC. Sandstein 11:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to let you know right now, I'm not going to block people at your request. If you're claiming that someone is behaving in a threatening manner toward you, and that you've somehow been a victim of a complex attack, you really need to contact the arbitration committee at this point. I'm not just going to take you at your word and block someone, not even if you ask repeatedly. ArbCom will accept email correspondence, and at this point, that may be your best way forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Literature about this logical / philosophical / legal topic coercion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@ Johnnuniq: I still wonder WHAT "legal action" you are talking / writing about? ;First, there is an enormous misunderstanding by Sandstein (who does not seem to recognize what is a "threat" and what not), others and perhaps you as well. Second, there is now also that vicious FALSE accusation added by that intriguant Banqkuo that showed up to make things worse (I suppose this is the user named Banquo on the Dutch wiki). If Basvb persists that some words from me were illegitimate, the onus agendi is with him, not with me.
=> I will think about your question how you I will respond if what you call "the external troubles are ever mentioned on en.wiki again" - be aware that my answer, or perhaps even a not-answering as well if I choose to and they (or others) are sly enough, could be taken as a kind of "invitation" to interwikihounds to continue harassing me and bring me into troubles here again.
Please, check my edit history and see that I am not a troublemaker at all. Without the "ius agendi", the right of every person to address a judge if necessary, all other rights are useless. Please answer me: may the abdication of this essential right be exorted under duress after a misunderstanding and even false accusations of a trumped up "legal threat", though it wasn't there? -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 11:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Similarly to Legitimus I was asked by JdF to weigh in based on my edits of an article about statements regarding "the present King of France", which are (possibly) meaningless because the subject does not exist. To quote: "I am blocked for an alleged "legal threat" that there was not there at all, and now I am asked to retract this "threat"..." He seems to read the terms of the block as analogous to "You say the King of France is bald; please retract this statement" and objects that he cannot retract a statement he didn't make. My reading of the terms of the block is that it does not request a retraction of anything, rather a denial, which JdF could quite easily do without admitting any threat - analogous to "Please confirm that you will never say the present King of France is bald", an answer to which contains no implication that any such statement was ever made in the past. (Aside: as an impartial observer it amuses me that the debate has descended to such levels of absurdity.) Hairy Dude ( talk) 12:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This user is a proud cyclist. |
Query, should a threat not at least be proven before it can be retracted? For how can one retract a not given threat? And if such a threat was not proven (as I think is the case and as Jan states is the case, and can be shown is the case, as I did above), was not the block given prematurely and even unjustly? -- Faust ( talk) 08:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
-- JanDeFietser ( talk) 11:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
JanDeFietser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There was no "Legal threat" by me at all, :1. not openly and neither veiled, : 2. not on the English Wikipedia NOR on another Wikipedia or even off-wiki. The rhetorical figure permissio that I used when I told Basvb to get off my back here on the English Wikipedia, precisely because of the objections here that came clear in July, is certainly NOT at all an equivalent of that rhetorical figure ad baculum. : Now this current block is abused to extort from me some desired "confirmation" on a topic outside the English Wikipedia. This is unreasonable and unacceptable. I want to continue working here without being harassed or hounded. My statement on my user page that Basvb somehow took offense of was removed in the meantime. Let us all respect and be satisfied with that new "status quo" and let me now continue editing. What is the value of the desired "statement"? On November 19th I provided, unfortunately to no avail, a clear statement on that other Wikipedia; that was first placed there on my user page and then removed and NO unblocking followed however, which makes me reluctant to issue whatever statement, especially under duress. -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 14:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It has been explained to you that you do not have to make a retraction to be unblocked. You do have to declare that you will not pursue legal action, you will not threaten to pursue legal action while editing en.wiki and you will avoid bringing disruptions not associated with the English Wikipedia to en.wiki. Arguing yourself out of this block is not an option; your only option is compliance. Tide rolls 17:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
Please understand that, at some point, posting unblock templates that do not address the issues will be deemed disruptive. This will result in you losing the ability to edit this page. I personally believe we have reached that point (and would understand the rationale of any administrator that would block your talk page access), but I also believe that revoking your talk page access should be a community decision. Please consider your actions carefully. Tide rolls 17:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Chen Pei-Kung has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
All Hail The Muffin
Nor does it taste nice...
00:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, JanDeFietser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Slp1 (
talk)
13:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jan Thanks for you addition to the polytechnique article. I've removed it for now, because the source you gave (and all the others out there) say that she was shot despite the fact that she said they weren't feminists. I hope you understand.-- Slp1 ( talk) 13:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Rereading the source I get the impression that you are right. Thanks. -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 13:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all. I appreciate your openness to checking!! Anyway, like I said, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy editing here. Have a good weekend! -- Slp1 ( talk) 13:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi I have reverted your addition to Cameron, I feel it is a news story not worthy of inclusion, I am available to discuss it on his talkpage if you want, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, JanDeFietser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions especially what you did for Bahai Faith, Flemish and Dutch language, 3 articles that are of personal appeal. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Bedankdt..-- Buster7 ( talk) 22:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi again Jan, I have now also removed your edit here reporting the announcement of a protest in 2010, please try to consider that this is an encyclopedia and a long term viewpoint, if the protest becomes notable after it happens then we can add comments about it. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
How is his name spelled? In the article you use Staffan de Mistura! Please clarify. Thanks. PamD ( talk) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Gelukkig Kerstfeest and Niewjaar.....-- Buster7 ( talk) 12:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you're adding too much Afghanistan's political information into Hamid Karzai article. I suggest you take most of that info and add it into Politics of Afghanistan.-- 119.73.0.171 ( talk) 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The September 2009 NZ Herald article says "the elite troops had arrived in Afghanistan". So they arrived there on or before Sep 21, 2009.
Their location at Kabul was disclosed in October 2009, per the stuff.co.nz article
You wrote: "In December 2009, these troops arrived in Afghanistan"
Please go back and remove "December 2009", it is erroneous. XLerate ( talk) 10:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Please remember to add categories to new pages.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 04:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, we don't really need multiple sources for one statement. Also, have you seen {{ cite web}}? fetch comms ☛ 20:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jan,
I think that we either need to describe in more detail who has made the assertion that the explosive matches that used by Pakistans ISI, or maybe remove the information altogether. The article (it's not a report) in The Daily Beast is written by an author who appears to be sympathetic to Russia and has connection to Russian media and probably to the Russian intelligence community. He may well have his own agenda. I don't think that The Daily Beast can be used for claims that appear to be extraordinary (i.e. a claim hinting at the direct involvement of Pakistans intelligence agency in the attack. Please let me know how you think about this.
Regards. Cs32en 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your insertion of the Netherlands legitimacy section into Multi-National Force Iraq. I believe it's misplaced there, as that page deals with the formal military command in 2004-2009, not the legality of the Iraq invasion itself. I've moved the section to Legality of the Iraq War#Netherlands, which I believe is a more appropriate placing. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Marjah (town). Thanks -- Joshdboz ( talk) 04:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message on my talk page, Jan (I replied briefly there too) and for highlighting the book on your blog. All such mentions are very welcome.
I see you're a Wikipedian cyclist. I fear I can hardly claim to belong to that category. But I cycle once a year -- on the day when our whole village goes out on the road -- and each year my ageing bicycle gets a round of laughs. I'd put it somewhere between 60 and 70 years old, and still running well (downhill at least). And rew D alby 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Nou Jan, dat is toch weer fraai--daar zit je dan zonder regering! Sterkte ermee! En niet allemaal voor Wilders gaan stemmen, alsjeblieft. Groeten, Drmies ( talk) 05:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
-- HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know Wiki to well, but you can update her page now. See my notes on the MS talk page. -- Anrkist ( User talk:Anrkist) 21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.137.55 ( talk)
I believe that two plus two equals four. Is mathematics then a religion? You are reading too much into a common usage. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Right now your contribution would qualify as wp:OR because you've provide no references to back up your edit. Could you provide citations? And what does this mean, at the end of your edit, "QuickiWiki Look Up" Thanks 842U ( talk) 12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on International Freedom Alliance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Kudpung (
talk)
04:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. T. Canens ( talk) 15:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(removed after hint of other user) -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 18:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
(removed after hint of other user) -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 18:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like your best bet (if you wish) to resolve the problems you have been having on nl.wiki would be to launch a request for comment at Meta-Wiki. (From the MW page) "It (meta wiki RfC's) can also be used for unresolved conflicts or other issues in regards to other Wikimedia projects if discussion on the relevant project has not been successful." I doubt you would find anyone here on the en.wiki who can help you on nl.wiki, your best bet would be over at Meta Wiki. Best of luck, Mauler90 talk 21:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO forget about those guys at NL, you are doing fine here and contributing, let go the page let it be deleted and move on editing here, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Jan, I am unsure what is going on but this is the english wikipedia and large swathes of foreign discussion should not be going on here. Are things ok? Off2riorob ( talk) 15:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dutch_Wikipedia_turmoil. Thank you. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. This edit, after this ANI thread is too much. I've blocked you for a week. Take your damn dispute to meta, back to nl.wiki, off to the blogosphere - I really don't care. Anywhere but here. TFOWR 18:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock}}
tag, described in your block notice, to request that another admin consider your block. I've considered it, and decided not to change or lift the block myself. Maybe another admin will think differently.
TFOWR
19:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Remarkable: This Dutch weblog, in a just published article full of untruths about me and repeating those false accusations of Cumulus and Peter b on the Dutch Wikipedia about "slander" (that there was not) and also the false accusations of "legal threat" (that there was neither), boasts that the current blocking of Faust and me is a "success" of a lobby of Dutch Wikipedians. That seems an interesting challenge by some mediocre figures. -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 20:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC) ὁ
Jan, did you see the decision at the noticeboard or were you notified about the decision that was (more or less) ..you and these other people are not to mention the dutch issue here at all? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
"All parties are urged to stop discussing IMMEDIATELY the conflicts of the Dutch Wikipedia, as well as all the fallout resulting from that discussion on the English Wikipedia. Continuing this discussing in ANY form, even on ANI or amongst eacho ther on user talk pages, will result in immediate blocking for a period of a week".
Suggested parties would be:
* User:JanDeFietser * User:Faust * USer:JZ85 * User:Theobald Tiger * User:MoiraMoira * User:Hazardous Matt * User:Grimbeert * User:TheDJ
* Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground * Wikipedia:No personal attacks * Wikipedia:Civility
Any further continuance of this beyond this point, anywhere in Wikipedia, will result in indefinite revocation of editing privileges here at the English Wikipedia. This includes any attempts to gloat or have the last word. This ends. Now. This doesn't belong here; we don't want this here; we're not going to have this here; and continued attempts to bring this here will result in summary ejection from the project forthwith.
Hi Jan,
I think you may have gotten into trouble by accident by invoking the NL-Wiki dispute indirectly. But note that even a sentence like e.g.: "This looks like NL-Wiki here" which does not explicitely raise any actual content of the dispute, can trigger a discussion that does raise the actual content. That's why the restriction not to discuss the dispute has to be followed in a ridiculously strict sense. I think if you agree to stick to this restriction, you'll be unblocked. Count Iblis ( talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to say on Jan's behalf that the remark he made on my behalf turned out to be true (and The DJ's account of things too hastily made). Perhaps the block should be lifted because of that? -- Faust ( talk) 06:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Count Iblis, I think the block should be lifted because he was speaking on my behalf and pointing out that my block was unjustified. Seeing as my block has been lifted because it was unjustified, at the very least we can say that he was right in saying so. The block of Jan therefore seems unjustified as well. -- Faust ( talk) 17:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, that is strange. In the (Dutch) law concerning slander it is not illegal to defend yourself against slander, even though that may in itself be slanderous. So, catch 22 does not apply there. I believe the same thing applies to all western countries on the basis of the freedom of person (universal rights of man). Perhaps we should find the appropriate wikipedia guideline and make a mention of this, to prevent future situations like this one for everybody? -- Faust ( talk) 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jan, the reason you are blocked was under the assumption of foul play in self defense: referaals to catch 22 were made and that is why you were blocked. This would in fact be inlawfull according to the above criminal code. Wikipedia has different guidelines, but I suppose we could (and maybe should) make an argument for adding the denial of catch 22. It seems a more than reasonable idea that would in fact counteract misuse of admin tools, as well as miscarriage of admins and facilitate the easier deduction of the real wrongdoers in question. I would like to add that this migt be seen as fallout, however, it seems that a critical analysis of the wikipedia guidelines is in order and should never be punished by a block as long as it is sincere. And this is. -- Faust ( talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Lets drop it here. I'll simply move to an examination of the guidelines and see what I can do. -- Faust ( talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, especially the 'indien hij dit bewijs niet levert'. Thanks! -- Faust ( talk) 23:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
JanDeFietser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
After a pause, I request a lift or shortening of the block. There was NO infringement, NO continuing of the nl.wiki dispute from my side after the message of Uncle G. This blocking is NOT justified at all by the facts. My explanation for what happened when user Faust was blocked turned out completely right. After the lies of JZ85 on 23rd July, another Dutch user, Grimbeert, arrived on 25th July, only to launch here the false accusations that I had to endure as well on the Dutch Wikipedia without being allowed to defend myself against these false accusations and stir up the so called "Dutch drama". See the user history of Grimbeert. Acting that way is not sincere and not in good faith. By this machiavellian machination here on the English Wikipedia, I was also denied defence against the false accusations of JZ85 - as well as his ridiculous exaggerations: according to him the Dutch Wikipedia has only 34 editors? (my wikimail was blocked in September after I adressed only 17 users about the tragic failure of NLArbcom...). In the meantime on the weblog Wiki-'Safe' (see above and the remark of Count Iblis) an ominous message appeared in which was boasted about a succesful "lobby" to have me blocked on the English Wikipedia. That message is filled with the same false accusations to which I was not allowed to defend myself on the Dutch Wikipedia. "Refugees" from the Dutch Wikipedia should not be confronted here on the English Wikipedia with the same sort of scenes.
Decline reason:
WP:NOTTHEM. Besides, this unblock request appears to confirm the reason for your block, i.e., disruptively continuing disputes from nlwiki on this Wikipedia. Sandstein 19:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
JanDeFietser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This is not continuing a dispute from the Dutch Wikipedia but pleading that such scenes should kept at bay here
Decline reason:
No, it's pretty clear that reading the section above this one that you are continuing those disputes. We don't want those arguments here - this has been explained to you and you persisted with your edits. TN X Man 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
I'll leave the request for another admin, but I note that the easiest way to stop a dispute from any other wikipedia project from coming here would be to NOT mention that project, NOT discuss it in oblique terms (as with "certain other smaller project", for example) and to avoid all discussion of the issue itself. Yet I keep seeing it brought up here, and I can't understand why. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello JanDeFietser! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot notifying you on behalf of the
the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
847 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 01:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Chloé Graftiaux requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
ww2censor (
talk)
15:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Jan,
On Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Text_on_User:JanDeFietser I've asked the administrators to look into the dutch text on your user page.
Mvg, NL_Bas ( talk) 18:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Sandstein
20:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)This concerns the legal threats you made here. Sandstein 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
JanDeFietser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is no legal threat at all: look before you leap. Unblock. -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You asked the other user to discuss the matter with you in court. You are entirely in your rights to do so; please wait to request unblock until after the two of you have met in court to settle the matter. If you decide not to meet him in court after all, feel free to request unblock, but make sure it's very clear that you are not now seeking legal action, and have no plans to seek legal action in the future. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 21:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
In addition to the legal threat, which is the reason for the block, I don't understand how bringing disputes from other wikis here helps to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 21:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Resuming: The true spirit of Wikipedia is that it is a free encyclopedia, and not a forum for cyberpesting, haunting or stalking. So please be wise, and unblock. If JanDeFietser would ever misbehave here he always can be critizised on valid arguments or eventually be blocked again if he disrupts this wiki. With high regards, Tjako ( talk) 22:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of this case is consistent with what Tjako wrote here. From what I read about this issue, there exists a real life dispute with legal dimensions dating back to the 1990s. Jan has been targeted on the Dutch Wikipedia by some editors who are involved in that real life dispute. Then I do think we can ask Jan not to react to any provocations himself here on Wikipedia. Instead, he should contact an Admin whenever he feels provoked by someone about these sensitive non-Wikipedia issues. That Admin can then take appropriate measures. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If we read this carefully we can see that:
JanDeFietser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I certainly did NOT "ask the other user to discuss the matter with me in court" - read carefully what I wrote exactly: I wrote that the issue should be discussed elsewhere, but not on the English Wikipedia, conform the decision of Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 ": you do not know the meaning of the expression "for that matter"? The idiom "for that matter" can be replaced by 'in fact' or 'actually': this means that I would not object or prevent him going to court, if Basvb really would be sincerely convinced that he is "accused falsely" (I will refrain from a material comment on this sly complaint of Basvb, who is the person who concocted the absurd ban on the Dutch wiki on November 6th 2009, that is still pending now after more than 9 months, while I cannot address the NL-Arbcom because my email is blocked..). That is NO "legal threat" at all! The English wiki nor its admins should not make itself completely ridiculous by upholding an overhaste reaction
Decline reason:
Until you clearly and unambiguously indicate that you do not intend to take these matters to court, your editing privileges cannot be reinstated. Please either indicate this without ambiguity and stop arguing that you said it at all, or wait until legal proceedings conclude. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
Hello, JanDeFietser, this is in reply to your e-mail. Your personal information and professional qualifications are of no interest to me, and neither is your dispute with others. What matters to me is that you disrupt this encyclopedia by making legal threats ("you even committed a criminal act with your threats on November 6th (art. 284 Sr)", "[your] criminal behavior", "or defend your behaviour ... in court" [1]), and by continuing a real-world and/or Dutch Wikipedia dispute on this Wikipedia ( [2], [3]), even after the community clearly told you to drop it. I will not unblock you until the legal threat is unambiguously withdrawn, as per the declining admins above, and I am entirely convinced that you will stop pursuing that dispute here, as per Johnuniq above. Sandstein 08:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This is in reply to your following e-mail, which I reproduce here as per my e-mail policy on my user page:
I see that you do not understand the legla intricacies of the situation: if Basvb thinks that I accuse him falsely, HE is the one that has to go to court. Not me. And I made alreday clear that I do not object against it (whic is no "legal threat" at all), because I am confident that my words were and are completely legitimate. Can you urge Basvb to start the proceedings against me as soon as possible, to shorten this very strange block on the English wiki? I can give Basvb my full address, no problem. I think it is reasonable that he has to start his proceedings in two weeks. Otherwise this peculiar block on the English wiki should be lifted immediately.
This makes clear that you still believe that the dispute between you and the other user requires legal action, even if initiated by the other user, to resolve. Moreover, you make clear you do not intend to cease making accusations against the other user on en.wiki until they take legal action against you. This is false. We require you to remove your accusations against others not because these accusations are either wrong or false (we neither know nor care about that), but because you are not allowed to misuse this Wikipedia as a forum for your grievances unrelated to this Wikipedia. As has been explained above, you are not allowed to edit this Wikipedia as long as you insist on attempting to do so, and as long as you make legal threats, which is what this amounts to. Your unblock request is declined and any future e-mails by you will not be answered. You may still appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee, see WP:BASC. Sandstein 11:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to let you know right now, I'm not going to block people at your request. If you're claiming that someone is behaving in a threatening manner toward you, and that you've somehow been a victim of a complex attack, you really need to contact the arbitration committee at this point. I'm not just going to take you at your word and block someone, not even if you ask repeatedly. ArbCom will accept email correspondence, and at this point, that may be your best way forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Literature about this logical / philosophical / legal topic coercion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@ Johnnuniq: I still wonder WHAT "legal action" you are talking / writing about? ;First, there is an enormous misunderstanding by Sandstein (who does not seem to recognize what is a "threat" and what not), others and perhaps you as well. Second, there is now also that vicious FALSE accusation added by that intriguant Banqkuo that showed up to make things worse (I suppose this is the user named Banquo on the Dutch wiki). If Basvb persists that some words from me were illegitimate, the onus agendi is with him, not with me.
=> I will think about your question how you I will respond if what you call "the external troubles are ever mentioned on en.wiki again" - be aware that my answer, or perhaps even a not-answering as well if I choose to and they (or others) are sly enough, could be taken as a kind of "invitation" to interwikihounds to continue harassing me and bring me into troubles here again.
Please, check my edit history and see that I am not a troublemaker at all. Without the "ius agendi", the right of every person to address a judge if necessary, all other rights are useless. Please answer me: may the abdication of this essential right be exorted under duress after a misunderstanding and even false accusations of a trumped up "legal threat", though it wasn't there? -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 11:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Similarly to Legitimus I was asked by JdF to weigh in based on my edits of an article about statements regarding "the present King of France", which are (possibly) meaningless because the subject does not exist. To quote: "I am blocked for an alleged "legal threat" that there was not there at all, and now I am asked to retract this "threat"..." He seems to read the terms of the block as analogous to "You say the King of France is bald; please retract this statement" and objects that he cannot retract a statement he didn't make. My reading of the terms of the block is that it does not request a retraction of anything, rather a denial, which JdF could quite easily do without admitting any threat - analogous to "Please confirm that you will never say the present King of France is bald", an answer to which contains no implication that any such statement was ever made in the past. (Aside: as an impartial observer it amuses me that the debate has descended to such levels of absurdity.) Hairy Dude ( talk) 12:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This user is a proud cyclist. |
Query, should a threat not at least be proven before it can be retracted? For how can one retract a not given threat? And if such a threat was not proven (as I think is the case and as Jan states is the case, and can be shown is the case, as I did above), was not the block given prematurely and even unjustly? -- Faust ( talk) 08:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
-- JanDeFietser ( talk) 11:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
JanDeFietser ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There was no "Legal threat" by me at all, :1. not openly and neither veiled, : 2. not on the English Wikipedia NOR on another Wikipedia or even off-wiki. The rhetorical figure permissio that I used when I told Basvb to get off my back here on the English Wikipedia, precisely because of the objections here that came clear in July, is certainly NOT at all an equivalent of that rhetorical figure ad baculum. : Now this current block is abused to extort from me some desired "confirmation" on a topic outside the English Wikipedia. This is unreasonable and unacceptable. I want to continue working here without being harassed or hounded. My statement on my user page that Basvb somehow took offense of was removed in the meantime. Let us all respect and be satisfied with that new "status quo" and let me now continue editing. What is the value of the desired "statement"? On November 19th I provided, unfortunately to no avail, a clear statement on that other Wikipedia; that was first placed there on my user page and then removed and NO unblocking followed however, which makes me reluctant to issue whatever statement, especially under duress. -- JanDeFietser ( talk) 14:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It has been explained to you that you do not have to make a retraction to be unblocked. You do have to declare that you will not pursue legal action, you will not threaten to pursue legal action while editing en.wiki and you will avoid bringing disruptions not associated with the English Wikipedia to en.wiki. Arguing yourself out of this block is not an option; your only option is compliance. Tide rolls 17:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
Please understand that, at some point, posting unblock templates that do not address the issues will be deemed disruptive. This will result in you losing the ability to edit this page. I personally believe we have reached that point (and would understand the rationale of any administrator that would block your talk page access), but I also believe that revoking your talk page access should be a community decision. Please consider your actions carefully. Tide rolls 17:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Chen Pei-Kung has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
All Hail The Muffin
Nor does it taste nice...
00:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)