User talk:Martijn faassen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Kenneth Alan

Your comments would be greatly appreciated and welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kenneth Alan. Thanks. -- Decumanus | Talk 17:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll get to the Singlish grammar after my finals are over. ran 22:53, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Martijn, User:RickK has been violently reverting my contributions any chance he comes upon them. He adheres not to truth, but a vendetta against me. Would you be willing to stick up for me? I know that you and I have worked on some important stuff together and I don't want it going to waste. I have bit of knowledge I don't want disrespected, even if my editing skills aren't the best. Please let me know, thanks. Lord Kenneð Alansson 03:41, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I haven't had the best of luck with many of your edits in the past, as you may recall. :) It depends entirely on the edits in question. What is happening, where? Martijn faassen 13:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Because of the past problems, I believe RickK likes to make a case that I should be banned when I have altered an article he's interested in, regardless of the edit. He seems easily flared up with seeing me around. I think that's the bottom line. As you and I have been working together on articles, I have been happier to share and exchange ideas, which contributes to better editing on my part and those involved. Thanks for persisting to try and get things right. Lord Kenneð Alansson 15:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How are you doing?

Hoi Martijn,

Ik kwam erachter dat (wat ik al vermoedde) jij net als ik een nederlander ben. Heb je er trouwens wel eens over gedacht om aan de nederlandstalige wikipedia bij te dragen? Neem me niet kwalijk dat ik in het nederlands schrijf hier, maar ik wilde wat onopvallend aan je doorgeven, zonder dat een bepaald ander iemand daar zomaar achter kan komen. Het gaat namelijk om diegene die onmiddelijk hierboven het laatste berichtje heeft achtergelaten en met wie we al heel wat trammelant hebben gehad, zoals je wel weet. Ik heb op de pagina voor verzoek om kommentaar over hem al aangedrongen om hem permanent de toegang te weigeren tot deze webstek. Maar dat is niet wat ik je wilde vertellen. Ik heb namelijk het diepdonkerbruine vermoeden dat hij zich nu onder een andere naam valselijk uitgeeft als deskundige in een poging zijn krankzinnige denkbeelden op te leggen. Omdat ik hier nog niet helemaal zeker van ben wilde ik dit hier nog niet uitdrukkelijk schrijven in het engels, maar als je kijkt in de lijst van mijn bijdragen en de discussiepagina opslaat waarop ik voor het laatst wat schreef, althans vóór het huidige bericht, zul je begrijpen wie ik bedoel. Ik hoop dat je de tijd neemt om de zaak nader te onderzoeken. Mijns insziens moet dit grond geven tot weigering van toegang. Neem me nogmaals niet kwalijk dat ik zo geheimzinnig doe, maar ik wilde er eerst helemaal zeker van zijn voordat ik hierover uit de kast klap.

Groetjes,

Fedor 20:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was een weekje weg van wikipedia. Bedankt voor het vragen. Ik heb zoal eens rondgekeken maar kan niet veel aanwijzingen vinden voor je vermoedens, als ik de weg goed kan vinden. De gebruiker die je lijkt te bedoelen heb ik al eerder meegemaakt en lijkt me niet de gebruiker die je bedoelt. De moeilijke gebruiker hoewel vaak recalcitrant voegt soms wel dingen toe die verwijzen naar echte theorieen, hoewel vaak ook wel weer niet. Martijn faassen 23:36, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on'evolutionarily stable strategy'

I have tried to resolve the comment you made on evolutionarily stable strategy. If you think that my correction is accurate, please remove the discussion from the Talk page.

Cheers, Noisy 10:30, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Alan

Kenneth Alan's case is now in arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan. You may wish to add comment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan/Evidence Mintguy (T) 14:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism?

I assume I did something wrong in a recent vandalism report, that it was erased by you, but could you tell me what it was so that I don't make the same mistake again?

Thanks, Aeconley 21:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My apologies; something must've gone wrong. I just tried to add to the report. I'll try to repair! Martijn faassen 21:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! It's my first attempt at making a report and I was concerned that I had messed up somehow. Much obliged, Aeconley 21:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gegroet!

Groetjes terug! :-)

Hmm, I recall you had this evolution simulator you were telling me about. Does that still run I wonder? :-)

User:taw might find it interesting too, come to think of it!

Kim Bruning 22:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Rastapopoulos
Orosirian
Wellington Province
Ectasian
Graeco-Aryan language
Rhyacian
Model culture
Kvasir
Eurasia
Calymmian
Saxon-English
Privative a
Entente Cordiale
Germanic philology
Galloway
Statherian
List of European companies
Vanaheimr
Proto-Indo-Iranian language
Cleanup
Philistinism
Neoliberalism in international relations
Red Guards (China)
Merge
Danelaw
Thegn
Appalachia
Add Sources
Pacific Northwest
Proto-Baltic language
West Germanic languages
Wikify
Paul Berman
Brugmann's law
Parapolitics
Expand
William Graham Sumner
Brescia
Yip Man

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

And what is the problem with the reference?--Gligan 21:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That is strange to me, it opens on my computer... I will give you the whole site [1] here it is; see 1.2 --Gligan 21:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm... i don't know what the reason might be; perhaps your computer has problems with the Cyrillic; you should know that the site is in Bulgarian only: ( I am going to sleep now but tomorrow will try search other sources. --Gligan 21:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
In the site map the English version of the main site ([2]) the site that is gave you above is not present, while on the Bulgarian version it is; so try to change the language in that page from English to Bulgarian and go to the site map where you will find it. --Gligan 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
My computer simply doesn't resolve the site at all - I can't reach it nor access anything in it. Other sites with cyrillic (such as www.government.bg, without the 'mfa' bit) do work, so it isn't that. It simply doesn't recognize the domain name 'www.mfa.government.bg' as an actual server on the net here. I don't know why, but I will try again later; it may be temporary. I'd definitely be curious to find other sources as well, since unfortunately I do not read Bulgarian. Thanks for trying to help. Martijn Faassen 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find an appropriate site in English for now, only that [3], [4], [5]. But I don't think we need more citations for obvious things: after all there are remains of neolithic settlements unearthed in north-eastern and central Bulgaria similar in a way to the older cultural layers of Troy (although not in that scale) simply exist and there is no need to prove that: ) And the treasures of Varna and Dabene which date from before 5,000-6,000 years are also evidence for developed civilizations. --Gligan 06:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your fascinate me

Mr. Faassen, I see you are trying to make allies out of those who delete academic sources regarding Bulgaria's ancient history. You know who I'm talking about, afterall you're discussing me on his user page. Weren't you the one that wanted me to find books that showed how long civilizations have existed on the territory? So, now that I have academically sourced the ancient history of Bulgaria with 4 seperate academic citations, should you not be the one that defends the Bulgaria section from those that delete these sources? I see that your personal dislike of myself has made you hypocritical towards the firm citation policies of Wikipedia, wherein such sources must not be deleted... Despite these sources being just as good, if not in some cases better, than other historical/archeological/anthropological sources used in other similar country pages, why do you feel they should not be mentioned in the history of Bulgaria? Is it because that goes against your initial subjective and non-academic perspectives on the composite nation? :)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Monshuai (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Monshuai, I can truly say you fascinate me too. You're quite entertaining! I won't go into a debate, but since you are talking to me about it, I'll try to explain what's going on. Cited sources are good. Cited sources don't make any text in wikipedia immune to further editing. It depends on the quality of the text and the quality of the sources and whether what's in the sources matches the text. It depends on what other sources there are. There's endless room for debates with that, but at least the debates have more substance than without such cited sources, as everybody could be coming up with anything they like. I'm surprised the admins you spoke to didn't explain this to you. Anyway, that's all I have to say about this, so don't bother replying. By the way, I hold no opinion on the Bulgaria article and any sources in there, removed or not. Debate that with other people, not me! I'm not editing the Bulgaria article at all. Debate someone else! If you are your usual self I will be quite amused. Martijn Faassen (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Faassen, dependent on my research, I have not found a single source that shows the territory of Bulgaria to have a civilized history less than 5-6 millenia in length. If such sources exist they can be placed there, but no one has done so. Simply said, people remove the already placed sources, without providing contrarian sources as a counter argument... I'm surprised that you missed this rule: Academic sources can not be removed per se, but rather countered with contrarian sources... Wikipedia functions on the principle of "academic debate", whereby opposing perspectives are cross-referenced/analysed according to contemporary academic studies/research, not just simply opinions of what should and should not be. BTW, please don't pretend to not follow our section as just a few days ago you jumped on the opportunity to write to 3rdalcove and mention me, right after I had posted a comment on his user page regarding our disputes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monshuai (talk • contribs) 03:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's absolutely pointless to debate with me. You told me good riddance a long time ago, in unmistakable words. At this point I choose not to worry about the Bulgaria article. You seem to deduce all kinds of positions from one line I wrote to a user you've also been arguing with in your entertaining style. Yes, of course I am reading what you write. As I said, you're quite fascinating. Go argue with some other person though, as you're engaging in an exercise of utter pointlessness in talking to me. Martijn Faassen (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If you don't want me coming around to 'entertain you' at your own expense, then don't talk about me! For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. --Monshuai (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to debate me, I'm just saying it's utterly pointless! I have lost hope of reasonable discussion with you, just like you lost hope of having any reasonable discussion with me, right? So: the Bulgarians are full of colorless green ideas, while the Dutch sleep furiously! The king of France is bald! Woohoo! Time flies like a arrow, and fruit flies like a banana. Moreover, time flies like a banana! Martijn Faassen (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And Martin Faassen is a historian with a PhD on ancient Bulgaria and a powerful admiration/love for a Mr. Monshuai... Ooops, time does fly like a banana and history buzzes like the fly's flapping wings. --Monshuai (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, both of those are obviously false: I have no credentials as a historian, and I have absolutely no admiration for you. You make very little sense to me, and I think I make even less sense to you. Martijn Faassen (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Monshuai is just getting too disruptive. An automatic system that blocks nationalists from editing at all should be invented. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Faassen, of course those things are false... It's called sarcasm.
I've moved the rest of this discussion to the Talk:Bulgaria page. Martijn Faassen (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lantonov

A direct response to Martin Faassen. No, I am not Monshuai, Martin. I am what I have written on my talk page. If you continue to insist that I am Monsuai, I will initiate an investigation of IP addresses to prove that I am not, and then hold you responsible for your insinuations of dishonesty.

Why do you and Monshuai both think I insist you're each other? I think it's quite plausible there's a connection between the two of you, and I didn't make any statement about what connection. Martijn Faassen (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the sentences that I copied, I admit that I copied (your synonym: "lifted", other synonyms: "filched", "stole", more formal: "robbed you of your intellectual property") some sentences from your response to Monshuai because I deemed them pertinent for the discussion with Nostradamus. I did not give credit because Wikipedia explicitly says that everything written here is not copyrighted:(All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.). If you still insist on giving you credit, this is it: hereby I give the credit for the text: "Cited sources are good. Cited sources don't make any text in Wikipedia immune to further editing. It depends on the quality of the text and the quality of the sources and whether what's in the sources matches the text. It depends on what other sources there are." to User:Martijn faassen.

Yes, I didn't say you're not allowed to do this legally. I just don't see how we can productively discuss anything if you're prone to pull off stunts like that. This has nothing to do with any legal matter. It's a moral matter: I do not appreciate my words copied and pasted and reused in another discussion. If you like my words, tell people where they come from. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. I'm glad you appreciate my words. I'm sure an actual apology would be too much to expect. Martijn Faassen (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My connection to Monshuai is only that I and him happen to have the same reverence for historical truth and distaste for people who try to distort it, and push their preposterous opinions here in Wikipedia. Lantonov (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's a good thing I share your reverence for truth and don't like people to push their preposterous opinions either. Good thing we're all on the same side, huh? Martijn Faassen (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
In general, I wish you could actually read what I say instead of continuously making up positions and attacking them. I'm not the one who did something wrong here, right? The only thing I ever did to you was try to debate something with you rationally, until I found this out. Martijn Faassen (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your moderate and reconciliatory tone. I gave you credit for the words not because I was obliged to (I know that I am not) but because I saw that the fact of copying them is used as an argument to further a cause of a side that is obviously wrong (Nostradamus1). I would apologise if I thought that I have done something wrong but I do not think so, first, because the words that I copied were used in a totally unrelated discussion that did not involve you at all, and second, because by writing here you explicitly revoke any copyright including giving a credit. My motives for copying your words were partly because they appeared as a part of some Wikipedia guide (I do not say that you copied them, I talk about their formal style) and partly because I felt that my opponent does not deserve much thinking and originality on my side. Actually, if I gave you a credit inside the discussion, it might further my side saying, for instance, that I am not alone in what I allege about sources but doing this would imply that you are a side in the discussion with Nostradamus1 which you are obviously not. I hope you understand me here. With very good feeling towards you. Lantonov (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to explain. I understand an apology is unlikely from you as you would probably feel you had done nothing wrong. I just draw the conclusion from this event that it is unlikely discussions with you will amount to anything productive. I'm surprised you think "I won't go into a debate, but since you are talking to me about it, I'll try to explain what's going on." a formal style, by the way. I understand English isn't your first language (it isn't mine either) so you aren't able to evaluate this. Martijn Faassen (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)



This is Arysvargas, I don't Know who you're and I don't care, But everything I wrote about the Vinland article or edited is because I have proof of everything I said, and I stand by my word on the other hand I see this site is nothing but a bunch of Ignoramous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arysvargas (talk • contribs) 13:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attack user Schonken

Martijn, this story has a long history. Some of it you'll find here:[6]. Don't ask me to make you understand, only the disingenuous party will and nobody would be interested in the consequences once this will escalate. Clearly, this does not involve anybody unlucky enough to be in the crossfire, for having your comments erased for responding on an abusive account. For this my excuses. Like you, I am here for content and not for politics. Cheers! Rokus01 (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] why removing Schonken's comments as vandalism?

Hi there, Schonken may be a blocked user and all, but:

  • as far as I know there is no guideline on *removing* content created by a blocked user. Only unencyclopedic content is removed.
  • this is not a content page and while Schonken's comments may be inflammatory, but I don't see them as vandalism. Let's not devalue the word vandalism.
  • why remove history? If Schonken was unreasonable, why not keep the evidence of this around plainly for people to see? I just don't see the point in removing his talk page comments. Martijn Faassen (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Rokus01 (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I just read this. I find that what you did is considered controversial. I knew that already. :) Martijn Faassen (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turks in Bulgaria, Bulgaria and the Macedonia arbitration

Hi. The best way to notify admins about this type of thing is to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Regards, BalkanFever 07:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)