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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rereading the source I get the impression that you are right. Thanks. --JanDeFietser (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

'tis the Season

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Karzai administration

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Marja

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Verdediging

Beste JanDeFietser, ik zie dat je druk bezig bent je problemen met de Nederlandse Wikipedia op andere projecten te melden. Dat lijkt me weinig zinnig gedrag. Ik raad je aan daarmee op te houden. Groet, Erwin (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin, als je het niet erg vind neem ik even rust.

Maar kennelijk ben jij bekend met wat je noemt mijn "problemen met de Nederlandse Wikipedia"?

Graag jouw mening dan over die valse beschuldigingen van Cumulus & Peter b die door hen op de Nederlandse Wikipedia werden geuit (juist dat was "cyberpesten", en niet zo weinig ook: met dat vals en morbide spookbeeld "dansen op het graf van Van Wissen" overschreed Peter b ver de grenzen van het toelaatbare - en ook een andere gebruiker beschuldigen van een misdrijf -of het niets is- is onaanvaarbaar). Die valse beschuldigingen van Cumulus & Peter b, die juist zelf feiten + bronnen verwijderden en vervolgens mij de pas afsneden naar de Arbcom die zij met bedenkelijk succes misleidden middels leugens en drogredenen, werden vervolgens door diverse andere gebruikers op de Nederlandse Wikipedia nagepapegaaid. Daarover wendde ik mij reeds op 20 juni 2009 tot de Arbcom. Op 30 oktober jl. weigerde de Arbcom doodleuk de door mij verzochte arbitrage. En ben je bekend met de mij berokkende schade? --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Op 24 oktober jl. informeerde ik de Arbcom van de Nederlandse Wikipedia per email over de schade. Wat er trouwens in die 2de dwaling d.d. 30 oktober jl. door de Arbcom van gebrouwen werd klopte gewoonweg niet. Ook werd gesjoemeld met de datums. Reeds op 20 juni 2009 legde ik mijn zaak voor over dat napepagaaien door RJB van die valse beschuldigingen van Cumulus & Peter B (juist dat was cyberpesten) en tevens berichtte ik de Arbcom in diezelfde email uitdrukkelijk dat er van of wegens mij geen proces te vrezen viel, hetgeen op 06 november jl. ook door Basvb tegenover JZ85 verzwegen werd toen hij die blokkering OT onder dat voorwendsel van een "Juridische Dreiging" bekokstoofde, die thans nog alsmaar voortduurt in weerwil van mijn duidelijke verklaring d.d. 19 november jl.

Zoals ik in mijn email aan de Arbcom d.d. 20 juni 2009 aangaf: Wikipedia loopt juist gevaar met gebruikers die lichtvaardig anderen van strafbare feiten beschuldigen en in strafrechtelijke aangelegenheden de betamelijke zorgvuldigheid niet in acht blijken te kunnen nemen, zoals bij die valse beschuldigingen tegen mij trouwens ook Peter b (indien het klopt dat Peter b IRL "advocaat" is, dan dient hij zich zeker de oren van zijn hoofd te schamen).

Aanleiding voor mijn email aan de Arbcom d.d. 20 juni 2009 waren de ontboezemingen van gebruiker RJB, die eerder al meende dat de strafrechtelijke begrippen "dader" en "verdachte" zogenaamd onderling uitwisselbare synoniemen zouden zijn en dat wanneer je persoonlijk van iemands schuld overtuigd zou zijn, diens verdediging dan overbodig zou mogen worden geacht - toen ik daartegen waarschuwde op de Nederlandse Wikipedia werd mijn bepleiten van de betamelijke zorgvuldigheid, omdat immers de Wikipedia anders vroeg of laat in grote problemen kan komen, door Pancho Villa "Juridisch Gemierenneuk" genoemd, waarop ik door Jacob H pardoes werd geblokkeerd wegens een zogenaamde "nazi-vergelijking", die er echter evenmin was als die "Juridische Dreiging" waarmee Basvb via JZ85 op 06 november jl. die blokkering OT bekokstoofde: er is echt iets flink mis op de Nederlandse Wikipedia. Als je het niet erg vind ga ik nu naar bed - hopelijk kan ik de slaap vatten en spoken niet die gemene woorden van Peter b door mijn hoofd--JanDeFietser (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Jan, het gaat mij niet om de inhoud van de zaak. Mijn punt is dat je op andere projecten, zoals hier, als normale gebruiker zou kunnen bijdragen. Zonder daarbij het verleden mee te nemen. Als je echter zelf dat verleden mee gaat nemen, heb je de kans dat het enkel daarom misgaat. Daar schiet niemand iets mee op. Groet, Erwin (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]