User talk:JanDeFietser

Welcome

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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)

Cameron

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)

Thanks for commenting, perhaps it would fit better in an article about a list of Conservative policy promises that they will introduce if they get elected. I was just looking and the broken promise of a vote on Europe is not included, if you want to add it, you are more than welcome to open a discussion on the talkpage and see if there is any support for adding it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Also thanks, but since the addition to Cameron resulted from my main interest in Afghanistan and not in Cameron, do not count on me for a discussion on alleged promises of a vote on Europe, on which I have no information. --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, don't worry..that is well past..I was thinking that your addition required a little more consideration and I have opened a section regarding it on the Cameron talkpage here , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

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)

Goedemorgen!

Thanks. As you might guess, I am a Dutchman (and to be true: my ancestors in paternal line were Flemish: they were refugees who migrated to the Northern Netherlands after the outbreak of the Eighty Years War in the 16th century), so some contributing to the articles on Dutch and Flemish is somehow quite obvious to me. --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

News

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)

Good morning, I can follow your remark, but I do not completely agree. The announcement of Wilders, and the fact that he calls the prosecution "political" and in the meantime makes it that himself by organizing that demonstration- is already notable. However, indeed it is better to be patient than to fuss about this. --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good morning to you Jan, yes, patience is a wikipedian virtue.. as I said at cameron, add the comment to the talkpage and see if there is any support to add it from any other editors there, I am only one editor, feel free to ask anything and if I can help I will, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Staffan di Mistura

How is his name spelled? In the article you use Staffan de Mistura! Please clarify. Thanks. PamD (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is the Italian di. 'will correct it. Thanks --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

'tis the Season

Gelukkig Kerstfeest and Niewjaar.....--Buster7 (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ja, dankjewel, voor jou ook fijne Kerstdagen en een gelukkig Nieuwjaar! --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hamid Karzai

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)

Thanks for the suggestion. I already suggested to create seperate pages on the Karzai administrations: a page on his presidency in the transitional period (i.e. until the first elections), a page on his first elected term and a page on his recently started current term. See the talk page. Then the information on the page on his personality would stay limited. What do you think? --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You may create another page but don't remove relevent information about Karzai from his page. Follow examples of other presidents such as Presidency of George W. Bush / George W. Bush.--119.73.2.138 (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As you probably have seen, in the meantime I created the page Karzai administration. I did this by copying the page on Hamid Karzai, and then removing from the copy the information that is merely about the person and removing from the original the information that is merely about his administration. If you notice that on one of both pages information got lost or misplaced in this operation, please feel free to correct that. Merry X-Mas, --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

NZSAS in Afghanistan

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)

That is, IF it would be erroneous. When two sources mention different dates, the most reasonable lecture of the given information is that the first source refers to the announcement of a future event (on August 10, 2009 by Prime Minister John Key) which then erroneously already was reported as an "arrival", and that the second source refers to the actual arriving on their operational grounds, in December 2009, which is not in Kabul, as I have understood.

In the meantime, in October 2009, a Norwegian publication revealed where the NZSAS would be deployed, i.e. were then not deployed yet.

You rely on just a single source, and when a later source quoted by someone else then contradicts the information of the earlier one, you then somehow "conclude" that "your" source "must be right" and the later source from someone else then "must be wrong", and you do not doubt your "conclusion"? Most of the times, it is better to think first of an explanation that explains the appearing contradiction between the old and the new information in stead of a thoughtless dismissing of the new information without recognizing the relevant distinctions: first there was an announcement of the deployment, second there was an arrival in Afghanistan and third there was a final arrival in the field, that is on the operational grounds. So, please, first go back on your reasoning behind your request.

Merry X-mas, by the way!

Rereading my source, I see that it mentions the date 21st September 2009 below the headline, while the date above it is only the current date of this reading, which is indeed not the date of the writing of the article: my fault. --JanDeFietser (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it is kind of concealed there. Merry Christmas to you! XLerate (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Karzai administration

Please remember to add categories to new pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing my edits from that page, that's vandalism.--119.73.1.134 (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing your edits? Did I do that? When? --JanDeFietser (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

He's talking to me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

May be you confuse me perhaps with someone else? Please point me then where and when I removed any edit from you --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you mean that 119.73.1.134 is talking to Ryūlóng on my talk page, but for which reason? --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The removing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's obvious, but not by me. --JanDeFietser (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

NWA 253

Just to let you know, we don't really need multiple sources for one statement. Also, have you seen {{cite web}}?  fetchcomms☛ 20:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

One source for a statement is easier to be wrong than more: "unus testis nullus testis"... --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if they all state the same thing, it's not needed. Now, if two sources contradict each other, that's and issue.  fetchcomms☛ 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Camp Chapman attack: Explosive

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)

HI Cs32en,

according to 'The Daily Beast' the source was an unnamed Afghan official. My idea is to see if further publications follow the next few days. As you might have seen, I formulated it carefully. It is not really clear if the claim is extraordinary: the same suspicion was heard about the Indian Embassy bombing in Kabul last year. --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Afghan government generally regards Pakistan as an adversary, if not an enemy, while Pakistan sees the Afghan government as an ally of India. So Afghan officials would be interested in making such claims, especially if they can find a journalist who accepts to publish them without insisting on citing the source by name. While the information may be true, we need to tell readers that this information does not come from an uninvolved news outlet, but from an involved party. (I myself had added the information some days ago, and removed it subsequently, when I looked more closely at where it came from.)  Cs32en  20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but to me it is not clear yet that the message really comes from an "involved party". The mistrust between the (present) Afghan government and Pakistan is also worthwhile to be mentioned somewhere, when it is related to events and if a quotable source can be found. --JanDeFietser (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Although the disagreements between the U.S. and Pakistan have been described by multiple reliable sources in their reports about the event, this has, to my knowledge, not been the case for the Afghan-Pakistani relationship. It's quite likely that there will be some reports about this, maybe not in news articles, but in analyses from think tanks or research institutes. So it's probably worthwhile to look out for such sources.  Cs32en  13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Legality of the Iraq War

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)

Thanks! The latter seems indeed more appropriate - I did not know about the existence of that page. --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Marja

Please see Talk:Marjah (town). Thanks -- Joshdboz (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The World and Wikipedia

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). Andrew Dalby 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Balkenende IV no more

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)

Beste Drmies, werd er nog geregeerd dan?

Nee, ik pieker er niet over op Wilders te gaan stemmen (het woord "overwegen" vermijd ik, want op de Nederlandse Wikipedia blijkt men dat voor een synoniem van "dreigen" te moeten houden...: zie namelijk mijn sinds november jl. alsmaar voortdurende "blokkering OT" aldaar), als ik trouwens al ga stemmen

(na bepaalde gebeurtenissen in mijn leven in 1992/1993 heb ik gedurende een jarenlange duistere periode helemaal niet meer gestemd en mijn oude belangstelling voor politiek ontwaakte pas weer in 2001 door de opkomst van Pim Fortuyn. Ik kan me nog het moment herinneren hoe ik me ervan bewust werd dat het was ontwaakt: in de kleedkamer na de karatetraining gooide iemand een balletje over hem op, waarop ik zoiets opmerkte als "ik verheug me op zijn komst in de Tweede Kamer, maar dat vind ik alleen echt nog geen goede reden om dan ook maar op hem te gaan stemmen". Ook herinner ik me met een aantal mensen op me heen dat ik destijds zelfs voorspeld heb dat die politicus zou worden vermoord (niet hoe en wanneer en door wie, want ik claim geen helderziendheid) en ook de schok die door ons heen ging toen mijn voorspelling juist bleek, d.w.z. was uitgekomen. Kort daarop heb ik toen voor het eerst sinds jaren weer gestemd (nee, bewaar me, niet op de LPF).

Geert Wilders zegt ook dingen waarvan ik vind dat die gezegd mogen worden, maar tevens veel dat om tegenspraak vraagt. Bij Tweede Kamer-verkiezingen zal Geert Wilders blijkens de recente peilingen toch wel hoog scoren, dus lijkt een versterken van dat tegengeluid me eerder gewenst dan een bijdrage aan de overwinning die me welhaast toch al onvermijdelijk lijkt. Hopelijk beaam je het belang van aandacht voor de in Nederland tegen hem aanhangige strafzaak en met name het lemma erover (graag had ik me daaraan gewijd op de Nederlandse Wikipedia, zoals ik daar maanden geleden al aankondigde: de Nederlandse Wikipedia heeft er nog steeds geen lemma over en de vermeldingen in het lemma over Geert Wilders zelf lopen achter - maar ja, geblokkeerd hè...). Volg mijn bijdragen alhier s.v.p. kritisch (dat bleek in juni jl. op de Nederlandse Wikipedia ook al een onbegrepen verzoek...) --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. ik vind zelf de aanhangige strafzaak erg belangrijk en ik waag me aan de voorspelling dat Wilders' advocaat een beroep zal gaan doen op het "ontbreken van wederrechtelijkheid" en mogelijk daarbij dat ietwat in de vergetelheid geraakte arrest van de Hoge Raad in de zaak van de Huizer veearts uit de jaren '30 van stal haalt. Ik schreef daarover reeds op mijn weblog. Ook een van mijn voorspellingen over hoe de rechtbank Amsterdam zou kunnen reageren op die door Wilders gepresenteerde lijst met 18 gewenste getuigen bleek trouwens inmiddels juist. --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Netherlands cabinet Balkenende-4

On 20 February 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Netherlands cabinet Balkenende-4, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Brenda Paz

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)

Thanks. I'll have a look. --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Belief and liberalism

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)

Well Rick, if you believe that a number is the sum of two other numbers without ever checking the calculation (or perhaps if necessary counting and re-counting), then your mathematics has nothing to do with science and indeed more with "religion" or even superstition... --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To explain my choice for the word "ideology" instead of "belief": many liberals are also atheists and sincerely abhor to be called "believers". --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Bicycle commuting

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)

Thanx for your reaction. That "QuickiWiki Look Up" is an unintended trace left there by an add-on in my browser and should be erased. As you can read, in my edit I mentioned the programs of the political parties. If you want, I can mention these parties and also create links to their programs, which are in Dutch, but what do you think, doesn't it go too far to quote these programs? --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Freedom Alliance

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)

ANI

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)

Nobody informed me about that. I wonder who is behind that machination (?). However, everybody can ask me questions that I would gladly answer. For the rest I advise them to keep cool and suspend judgment. --JanDeFietser (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Verdediging

(removed after hint of other user) --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

απολογία

(removed after hint of other user) --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki RFC

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)

Thanks. --JanDeFietser (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

comment

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)

Thanks for your reaction. You have no idea about the damage, but I appreciate your encouragement regarding the work here.--JanDeFietser (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ik neem vandaag lekker rust (wat schrijven betreft althans). Belangstellenden verwijs ik naar mijn weblog van vanochtend "Wat was hier nu eigenlijk cyberpesten? (2)"--JanDeFietser (talk) 05:17, 23 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)

hi Rob,

Thanks for your reaction. The problem is that I was blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia on 6th November for a "legal threat" that had not been there at all, and that I am still not deblocked even after my clear declaration dated 19th November, and that when I wanted to bring this for the Arbcom of the Dutch Wikipedia, they blocked their email address for me. There is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia.

Of course this should be discussed on the Dutch Wikipedia, but when all access is blocked there must be another way.--JanDeFietser (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I will remove my addition of today from this talk page. Who wants to know more can search its history.--JanDeFietser (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I would let those guys be with themselves, I have heard reports of many problem at some of the smaller wikipedia, at least you are good here. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 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)

Thanks for the message, but if it is useful to prevent things from overheating now, I might as well for peace's sake take a step back for the moment. However I am willing to answer questions. --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for continuing the nl.wiki dispute on en.wiki. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{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)

TFOWR, get a grip on yourself, control your emotions and reread: 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 by the facts.

Also, please not only relax a bit but also do not swear or use sortlike foul language ("damn") towards this user: that slip of your tongue might be a tell-tale about your competence. And is there any "ownership" involved here? --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I quoted Vianello's words in which he jumps to a much too far stretching conclusion and in which he seems not to think of the possibility of an own error (I explicitly used the word "misunderstanding" - please check my words above). Vianello wrote @ Faust "Since you have demonstrated you do not care about being honest, any possible veracity to your future claims has been called into question." Again I ask: Could there be no misunderstanding here?

Faust wrote @ Count Iblis about his weblog. HOW, according to which quirk can his weblog be related with that "Dutch disease"-discussion? Earlier today, Count Iblis referred to my weblog, which is not the same and should not be mixed up with his.

And again I have to resist temptation to make a comparison with practices on a certain smaller Wikipedia, which I still do NOT make. Read diligently, TFOWR. If you read something else in my words, that could be something only in your mind and nowhere else. If I made that comparison, how was it then? I will probably appeal to this ridiculous block tomorrow. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly it: "I have to resist temptation to make a comparison now with practices on a certain smaller Wikipedia". That's exactly why I blocked you. If you can tell me - honestly - that you weren't referring to nl.wiki I'll give due consideration to lifting your block. TFOWR 19:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that I did NOT make the comparison with a certain smaller Wikipedia. Please reread. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You wrote this: "I have to resist temptation to make a comparison now with practices on a certain smaller Wikipedia". What's to re-read? Why mention "a certain smaller Wikipedia at all? Why not resist the temptation to avoid even mentioning the comparison. DammitCrikey, I was hoping for at least an imaginative excuse. TFOWR 19:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Struck "foul" language, inserted bland alternative. TFOWR 19:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Again now, I have to resist temptation to make a comparison with practices on a certain smaller Wikipedia. Only if I go into details I might perhaps infringe. Reconsider this ridiculous block and also again, please, do not swear or use sortlike foul language ("dammit") towards this user. Thanks in advance. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You can use the {{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)

You could have left away your last word as well. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:53, 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)

There was a lobby today going on from admins of some smaller Wikipedia, as can be read in that boasting Dutch weblog (see link above). Wasn't there some kind of an "Embassy" on the English Wikipedia where we refugees can apply for protection against such dark machinations? --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• - Look as you have been here over six months with a clean block log, if you understand and will say you won't breach the conditions again and accept them, add an unblock and request an unblock and you have a chance of a result, if you understand why you have been blocked and assert you will not repeat the issue ..

these conditions

"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)

Good morning my dear Count Iblis,

thanks for your message. In the meantime, that weblog was launched that calls itself Wiki-Safe.

One might wonder how "safe" ANY Wikipedia could be with such pathetic "protectors" (brave knights that stumble in their shining armour...). They claim already a "first success": a severe case of "philonikia". If I have time I will today appeal against the block here on the English Wikipedia. I am not in a hurry. --JanDeFietser (talk) 03:53, 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 Jan and Faust, that site indeed suggests that some off-wiki campaigning may have been going on. However, I would urge you not to raise this issue here, because that again brings the trouble at NL-Wiki here, albeit very indirectly. But even indirectly refering to that dispute should be avoided.

For the appeal, you should not defend your actions or explain them in detail. All you need to do is to say that you won't raise that issue here on EN-Wiki again. At most, you could say that you misunderstood the meaning of "not raising the issue again" without going into details. The Admins are aware that there are reasons why from your point of view you would like to say more to defend yourself. However, what they really want to see is that you are able to not raise this issue here. This is how appeals work in general on Wikipedia; an "appeal" isn't really an appeal like that that of legal system. Otherwise, in this particular case, you would be in a catch-22 situation: defending yourself properly would necessarily bring in the dispute that you were asked not to raise anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The point is that I just can not stand false accusations. My idea for this moment is that, again, I can beter take some rest. --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:42, 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)

Thanks Faust, but I must really admit that it is indeed a personal problem from me that I can not stand false accusations. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Later I will appeal to the block. I will request for a shortening in stead of a lifting. The reason of my edit about which some admin took offence was the fact that here on the English Wikipedia again I had to endure false accusations and parroting of false accusations (by JZ85 and Grimbeert). Unfortunately, not everyone seems able to imagine how it is to be accused falsely again and again without being allowed then to defend yourself to those false accusations. --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:59, 27 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)

Libel and slander

Dear Faust, according to the Dutch law, defending oneself against slander cannot be slander (so it is logically impossible that the defence itself is slanderous); this follows from the legal definition in art. 261 and 261 Sr (Dutch Criminal Code or Penal Code from 1881).

The latter crime is a qualified form of the former and there is this important clause in the Dutch text of the former: "Noch smaad, noch smaad schrift bestaat voor zover de dader heeft gehandeld tot noodzakelijke verdediging, of te goeder trouw heeft kunnen aannemen dat het te last gelegde waar was en dat het algemeen belang de telastlegging eiste." "Smaad" and "smaadschrift" are described in art. 261.1 Sr, and art. 262 Sr states (underlining by me): "Hij die het misdrijf van smaad of smaadschrift pleegt, wetende dat het te last gelegde feit in strijd met de waarheid is, wordt, als schuldig aan laster, gestraft met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste twee jaren of geldboete van de vierde categorie." Mind that both crimes are NOT exactly the same as "libel" and "slander" in the British and American Common Law system(s).

The Coffeehous Mob, frontispiece to Ned Ward's Vulgus Britannicus (1710). The fruits of the Grub Street publishers were read and debated in houses like this.

The reason why the 19th century lawmakers on the European continent criminalized this matter, was their wish to get rid of the phenomena of duel(l)ing, a form of ritualized violence. A legal resort was needed to settle insults, libel and slander in a peaceful way.

See Markku Peltonen The duel in early modern England - civility, politeness and honour (2003), Kevin MacAleer Dueling : the cult of honor in fin-de-siècle Germany (1994), Friedhelm Guttandin Das paradoxe Schicksal der Ehre - zum Wandel der adeligen Ehre und zur Bedeutung von Duell und Ehre für den monarchischen Zentralstaat (1993), Ute Frevert Ehrenmänner - das Duell in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (1991), V.G. Kiernan The duel in European history - honour and the reign of aristocracy (1988), François Billacois Le duel dans la société française des XVIe-XVIIe siècles - essai de psychosociologie historique (1986), Robert Baldick The duel - a history of duelling (1965)

and as historical sources specifically concerning The Netherlands under the present Dutch Criminal Code Wetboek van Strafrecht 1881 W.M.H. Anten, W.M.H. Het verachtelijke en verderfelijke van het duel (1892), Binnert Philip de Beaufort Beschouwingen over het tweegevecht (1881) as well as, from before the current Dutch legislation J.J. van Hees van Berkel Iets over de wetgeving betrekkelijk het tweegevecht en de beleedigingen (1842).

However, in the era before the Rule of Law, slander and libel towards the upper class also had the (rather primitive) social function of opposition from the upcoming bourgeois class against the aristocratic establishment (e.g. pornography featuring the French queen Marie-Antoinette etc.): see about that the lemma on Grub Street and also the latest book of Robert Darnton "The Devil in the Holy Water" (2010, on libel and slander in pre-revolutionary France).

As the book of Darnton shows, England was (then) a safe haven from where critical publications on the situation in France where published by Frenchmen in exile, and also smuggled across The Channel.

There was some change in the text of this Dutch law roundabout 1978, I remember. I have to check it and I will probably come back on this later tonight.

=> Please note that I am not blocked here on the English Wikipedia (fortunately just temporarily) now because of these alleged "slander", but because of a remark related to my impossibility to defend myself against false accusations that now were parroted here on the English Wikipedia by JZ85 and Grimbeert.

=> But I have to remind you that all parties were urged to stop discussing the conflicts of the Dutch Wikipedia, as well as all the fallout resulting from that discussion, on the English Wikipedia. So I ask you to write about this and what you suggest about the Wikipedia Guideline very carefully, so that it can not be taken for the intended "fallout", and in more general terms to make clear that it is relevant for the English Wikipedia, or Wikipedias in general. --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:17, 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)

Dear Faust, indeed a critical analysis of the Wikipedia Guidelines is in order and I agree that it should never be punished by a block as long as it is sincere. There is still the chance however that it would be perceived as that "fallout", and a debate about that might mean a revival of the issue (the so called "Dutch drama"). Question: if someone does not want to hear (about) something anymore, does it matter then if someone else plays a false tune or a delight for the ears? --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:56, 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)

O.k. In the meantime, I found how the Dutch law was changed, as I remembered, indeed, in the year 1978. My memory served me well...

Before 1978 the definition of the crime of "laster" in the Dutch Criminal Code was: "Hij die het misdrijf van smaad (...) pleegt ingeval het bewijs der waarheid van het te laste gelegde feit is toegelaten, wordt, indien hij dit bewijs niet levert en de telastelegging tegen beter weten is geschied(...)." About this change in 1978 concerning the element of "wetende dat" (knowing that) see A.L.J.M. Janssens Strafbare belediging (1998), § 8.4.2.3 "Wetende dat" en laster, pp. 156-159.--JanDeFietser (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, especially the 'indien hij dit bewijs niet levert'. Thanks! --Faust (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that this was the text of the law before 1978. Since then, the formula is "Hij die het misdrijf van smaad of smaadschrift pleegt, wetende dat het te last gelegde feit in strijd met de waarheid is(...)". --JanDeFietser (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This is not continuing a dispute from the Dutch Wikipedia but pleading that such scenes should kept at bay here |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=This is not continuing a dispute from the Dutch Wikipedia but pleading that such scenes should kept at bay here |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=This is not continuing a dispute from the Dutch Wikipedia but pleading that such scenes should kept at bay here |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)

It's not just being brought up here. The phrase was also rather eagerly used to describe my entirely unrelated hasty misunderstanding of an honest unblock request by User:Faust as well. I'm not defending my bad decision, which in of itself I was legitimately called out on, but good gravy there seems to be some real eagerness to bring this subject up whenever possible. - Vianello (Talk) 03:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Eppur si muove. --192.87.123.154 (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)