Overleg gebruiker:EffK~nlwiki

EffK charge in progress

The representative victim has suffered the degrading and humiliating treatment of being brought to a closed court called an arbitration in the United States of America by a charitable Foundation constituted in that State which adjudged that the victim acted in such intellectual dishonesty and against the clear constituted tenets and mores of that charity as to warrant silencing and loss of the currency of free expression as well as a branding as a fantasist of criminal mind and intent. The representative victim is recognisably representative of a body of international victims who have equally attempted to enter intellectual veracity into the broad spectrum of the Charities' socially constituted purpose and is to be considered as but the leading victim amongst all such group who have suffered the degrading and humiliating treatment. As the treatment was published on the World Wide Web by the Charity, the representative victim was so treated throughout all States, but specific treatment was published as fact in certain States particularly USA, Italy, Netherlands, Germany and France.

The victim throughout appealed to reason and social justice and claimed that he represented a massive but largely deceased group of victims whose suffering was of a nature as that since itemised through the Statute of Rome. The victim therefore claims the term victim as representative of this massive group.

The nature of the victim's complaint against Justice is closely intertwined with the principles of international law and has special regard to whatever nullifying tenet has been entered concerning retro-activity of criminal justice.

The representative victim suffered the treatment between 2004- 2007, and the treatment continues unabated. The nature of the treatment has combined to injure the physical health of the representative victim, and has deprived him of his human right to freedom of expression and from persecution and throughout has the victim gripped by a justifiable fear of physical retribution for making that expression which brought the closed trial and open judgement levelled against the victim. The victim considers that as he may make no free expression that he is in effect a disappeared person and thus subject to the articles of the Statute of Rome.

The representative victim engendered the treatment due to his attempt to furnish truthful information of relevance both to recent history and particularly that remembered in the Charter of the United Nations and of all current civilizing International law. The victim expresses that a tolerance or oversight or in-admission of State criminality affects the present through the continuance of a Treaty or Concordat between The Holy See/Vatican City State and the State of Germany and through the continuance of a Treaty between the Holy See/Vatican City State and the State of Italy. The chronology of these continuing Treaties thereby involves the principles of criminal retro-activity over an extended period, to at least 1929, and possibly beyond.

The victim continues to have cause to reiterate the expression of the Prosecuor of the International Military Tribunals of Nuremberg that the first mentioned Treaty was 'a manouvre intended to deceive' and to assert that the Tribunal's recognition of a 'secret un-accountable organisation' referred to The Holy See/Vatican City State. The victim asserts that he is indeed representative of a recognisable group of people who attempt to un-ravel the secret and un-accountable nature of the Vatican City State, and that he differs in only degree by virtue of a greater concentration of legal purpose.

The legal purpose that has led to the victim's treatment centres on his assertion that the Tribunals left un-answered and un-judged aspects of a criminal nature of the Vatican City State and it is his reversion of the recorded concern into the present which chiefly accounts for the treatment accorded to the victim.

The victim claims that a miscarriage of justice affects the State of Germany, the State of Italy, and the Vatican City State. The victim claims to recognise the principles of the International Court of Justice/ICC that criminal law be firstly up-held within States, and only that an abandonement of a State of its internal law requires the ICC to act.

In this regard the victim asserts that Italy as a Party State continues to fail in this regard. The Vatican City as a unique quasi-State yet possesses precise law which the victim contends is adequate to the task, but contends that both states exhibit substantial collapse or unavailability of their national justice system.

With regard to Italy the victim asserts that the continuance of the Lateran Treaty , initially of 1929, demands the proper judicial review of its continuance due to the failure and profit thereto from its other signatory Party State, The Holy See/Vatican City state of Article 24 which states:

"Article 24 In regard to the sovereignty appertaining to it also in international matters, the Holy See declares that it desires to take, and shall take, no part in any temporal rivalries between other States, nor in any international congresses called to settle such matters, save and except in the event of such parties making a mutual appeal to the pacific mission of the Holy See, the latter reserving in any event the right of exercising its moral and spiritual power.

The Vatican City shall, therefore, be invariably and in every event considered as neutral and inviolable territory."

The representative victim in part measure incurred the treament because he precisely recorded the nature of the transgression of Article 24, as definable by the Secret Annexe to the subsequent and continuing Treaty of Concordat with the State of Germany in 1933. It is widely accepted that the so called Secret Annexe of this Treaty contravened the earlier Treaty of Versailles to which Italy was State Party in regards to its Covenant that stated:

"In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintainance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another Agree to this Covenent of the League of Nations."

Although this Secret Annexe is historically recognised as doubly transgressing the Italian State's obligations regarding the Versailles Covenant it is the representative victim as example of a concerned yet subjugated group who incurred his most extreme treatment for stating that the Lateran Treaty's still current obligations were abandoned by the Germany/Vatican City State-Holy See Treaty of 1933. The assertion that the extant Lateran Treay would fall into disfunction strikes today at the very material existence of the quasi-State of the Holy See/Vatican City State.

The nature of the interventions by the quasi-sate party vatican City State-The Holy See in the course of aquiring material benefit through the acceptance by the ciminally defined Government of Adolf Hilter/NSDAP in 1933 Germany has equally heavily contributed to the treatment of the representative victim and the disallowance within the supposed evaluation by the Charity who levelled the treatment in print, and the extremely dangerous consequences feared from other quarters by the victim relate to his clear assertions as to this specific series of interventions from the said quasi-State within the internal affairs of Germany which resulted in on-going material favour. The assertions of history themselves cause the proscribed treatment by virtue of the victims precise reporting of the work of third parties in the relevant field that is not only un-welcome reminder to a 'secret un-accountable organiisation' but when allied to reporting its inernal judicial system inexorably leads to the imposition of that quasi-States possibly unique acceptance of retroactivity for criminal action. The victim suffers degarading and humiliating treatment because of the 'national' law by his very recording of its logical application and thereby heightens every un-consummated Nuremberg question regarding the 'secret un-accountable orgainsistaions' involvement in precisely the resulting material benefit from the Treaty.

The victim asserts throughout his treatment that the Party State Germany itself here enters into on-going questions of criminality and retro-activityand that a judicial review subsequent to the armed removal of the criminal regime purporting to be the legal Government of Germany which illegally claimed to be empowered to sign such treaty with The Vatican State-The Holy See contributes greatly to the victims treatment. The inability of the Germany Party to abrogate its concept of the legality of a Treaty which actively inculpated its dual State signatories against international law as defined in the Versailles Treaty makes subsequent review entirely retroactive in capacity such that the victim asserts that the present and continuing material benefit amounts to support for an international crime under the Article 6 2 f of the Convention on Transnational Organised Crime . The victim asserts that the criminal responsibility has not evaporated from present German Governmental control because the Treaty continues with the quasi-Vatican City State government who by default benefit in material terms from money laundering achieved by both Lateran and Versailles Treaty abrogations and that this benefit can only be sustained at the loss of the Lateran Treaty itself the which is contradicted. The present German government cannot claim non-retroactivity because its continued acceptance of a Treaty the which inception broke that State's part acceptance of another Treaty constitutes a crime only supported by the present Germany/Vatican City State-Holy See Treaty. It is the victims contention that Germany is in contravention of the Convention on Transnational Organised Crime, and that the criminals are the Government/representatives/employees of The Vatican City State-The Holy See and that were the amount of material substance considered whether by transferred benefit to that quasi-sate, or solely by the avoidance of cost to that quasi-State be considered from the self-supporting nature of its criminal arm in the State of Germany to be considered, then a penalty of more than 4 years imprisonment would accrue and so define the criminality.

Unlike with more recent international law recurring to and including the precepts of the Nuremberg Tribunals the recalling of the general principle of criminal law in a non-retroactivity of criminal law cannot apply as the Lateran Treaty remains in force as at 1929 and whereas non-retroactivity was accepted at Nuremberg the Versailles Treaty abrogation by Italy in its allowance of a non-compliance through the third-party co-signatory to the subsequent Lateran Treaty is asserted by the victim to require present judicial review notwithstanding the passage of years. The principle throughout international law is visibly and continuously abandoned by Italy especially that condemning Acts by the authorities of a State in violation of its obligations under a treaty which is designed to ensure international peace.

The victim in recording that equally the 1933 Germany/Vatican City State-Holy See Treaty was an abrogation of the Versailles Treaty and by recording that the Germany Treaty remains in force asserts that a retroactivity does enter judicial review and therefore asserts that should the States of Italy and Germany and the quasi- Vatican City State not enter into such judicial review that each of these States whether or not States Party to the Statute of Rome should be deemed by the International Criminal Court to exhibit substantial collapse or unavailability of each States' national justice system.

Regarding the extant Germany/Vatican City State-Holy See Treaty it is the victims assertion as to the precise illegality thus far and over many decades tolerated in the precise retro-active judicial system of the quasi-Vatican City State Party which has made of the victim subject to all variation of abuses under subsequent international law and that despite the non -State Party status of the Vatican City State the victim requests that the ICC if necessary and should the principle of proprio motu which is a variation of motu proprio not intervene that the ICC President forward the necessity for regard to the General Assembly of the United Nations

The victim records with specific notice to the ICC that the non-State Party in these matters, Vatican City State/The Holy See itself holds to retro-activity of criminal and so called Divine Law, and the victim contends that it was the most conributory cause for his degrading and humiliating treatment that he recorded the precise nature of this quasi-State's justice system with regard to retro-activity and that the very act of so doing has invloved the victim despite apparent existence of peace amongst civilised nations under very many of the provisions of the Statute of Rome.

The objective factual circumstances surrounding the concatenation of Vatican City State birth and involvement through its personnel reflective of a much larger nation or world power finally must by the victim whose injuries are only those marked byt the very inception of this sate's involvement in Germany be remarked as regards the effect of the treaty made byt it with Germany. The means and results of this intervention are lately categorised but the factual circumstances of the result of the Treaty by their embrace of the very worst inverse of civilsation, the Holocaust, and the suspiccion voiced by the victim on behalf of the massive group of earlier victims and their present varied champions can only be comprehended by recourse to present international law attempts to make of the Versailles Treaty's covenant a living reality, such that the United Nations Charter uphold mankind and prevent such civilisational collapse as defined as being 100 years of regress by the Nuremberg tribunals. The representational victim acts precisely towards and for the implementation of this Charter, and against the apparent criminal hypocrisy of an inhuman because 'divine' quasi-Sate which the victim defined as having had the most serious implication not only in past War and industrialised genocide but now suspected by him as invloved in present belligerent effect within closed diplomatic ties.

The victim in regard to the present, that is to actions and Treaty composed within the present, asserts that the quasi- State central to the treatment of innumerable groups of people, today still remains a secret un-accou table organistaion, of un-known walth, influence and threat to all that is envisioned by the UN Charter precisely because this quasi- Satate's system of law is in disaccord with the reality of life upon the Earth.

In signed anonymous contravention to that law claimed by the Wikipedia Foundation, and in charge that this Foundation will be responsible for all hereto published verifiabilities including specifically all charges of factual criminality and responsibility under all relevant law within the jurisdictions touched upon by the said Wikipedia: EffK as pseudonyim claims degrading treatment under international convention within this page, and all the pages of this charity and pubilcation of EffK's IP number following at this time/date stamp shall constitute future charges of criminality under Conventions. Be warned that prosecution is fair, and failure to release the above texts under solely the name EffK -without address- will be prosecuted as strictly a continuance, under principles of Unusual and Degrading Punishment thus far suffered by EffK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.104.63 (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hereby I sahll prosecute under Convention. EffK

Overleg

Onderstaande discussie (570 kB groot) is op 4 augustus 2006 in één keer hierheen gekopieerd Johan Lont 8 aug 2006 09:33 (CEST)

(The discussion below was copied here in one piece on August 4, 2006).

OK- you are at EffK's nl.wp talk spot. The above refer to lotsa info stored in the previous diffs, or look elsewhere, it aint hard to find. The info is heavy. Now Ill just use this new version to store current wikipedia reports( as 'appropriate') and interactions, if any appear.

To start with here's the general discussion "about me" to date, some good(not much) and some bad. 'Suck it and see' is an old expression, like a sweet. No I don't speak Dutch, but I can follow the parallel similar articles to those I see in parallel wikipedia inter-wiki linked languages.

I am that same EffK, testing the suck it and see if it's sweet.EffK 11 aug 2006 01:42 (CEST)

I believe there may be hope for WP if everyone( including Jim Wales), everywhere( all WP's) obeys the Wikipedia rules: AGF until disproved, NPOV, Verification is king. With verification, the limit of AGF is determinable.

De Kroeg Part 2- Administratorhelp required at Hitler discussion

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_Wikipedia:De_kroeg I am fulfilling the above request to reference and source the facts , at Hitler overleg, but I am told to exit nl.wp. I take this as un-friendly, so please the person who said this was a 'friendly community' here, help me to complete the other nl.wikipedian's referencing request here above. I am completing the referencing, and do not like this tratment of my good will. Please help protect this work-made for future translation. please uphold the friendliness of the 'community'..EffK 10 aug 2006 14:32 (CEST)

I'm confused or maybe I missed out on something. Who told you to exit nl.wp and where did he/she tell you this? I merely see someone stating that your "overleg" page is too large and that it needs to be deleted (in this form). The nl-wikipedia isn't meant to dump all your previous discussions, is it? Just back the stuff up on your computer and make the (preferrably short) reference list. I'm sure people will have a look at it then. Regards, Martijn ^→!?← 10 aug 2006 14:40 (CEST)

• Overleg:Adolf Hitler(Verschil tussen wijzigingen)Ga naar: navigatie, zoek Versie op 4 aug 2006 15:25 (wijzig) SanderSpek (Overleg |bijdragen)(revert. What's the purpose of this?) Discussion was reverted, contrary to WP guidelines- or is it vandalsim to inform via WP-links?

• (huidig) (vorige) 10 aug 2006 12:16 Willem Huberts (Overleg | bijdragen) (This is Wikipedia-NL, so please use Dutch or leave - ongedocumenteerde, ongefundeerde en incoherente woordenbrij verwijderd)

• 10 aug 2006 14:43 (gesch) (wijz) Overleg:Adolf Hitler (This is Wikipedia-NL, so please use Dutch or leave - ongedocumenteerde, ongefundeerde en incoherente woordenbrij verwijderd) (laatste wijziging)

• notice User EffK, I strongly advice you to stop with this. The is the Dutch language wikipedia, not the English, not a place to come when you are blocked on EN. --Walter 10 aug 2006 15:04 (CEST) Stop means leave, logically.

To elaborate on my revert, you just dumped a large incomprehensible text, at the time still without any explanation of what the purpose of that text was. Reverting nonsense (what it defintely was at the time) is completely coherent with WP guidelines.

And again, please keep discussions at the appropriate place. This discussion page is not the appropriate place. Sander Spek (overleg) 10 aug 2006 19:52 (CEST)

"Please" you use harshly. You treat me harshly. I cannot/am prohibited from contributing with that serious work, so all I can do now is try to protect myself here. Sander,Where is "it"- the text, now, ? "It" looked like vandalism to you, yeah? I am some kind of pervert who writes intentionally incomprehensible rubbish, yeah? Not worth a reasonable assumption of anything, yeah? English per se is vandalism? My english is vandalism ? vandals write long texts like that often? They sit up at night and infect the wikipedia-soryy-your wikipedia?

I can't win. I try and play fair, and nowhere is 'appropriate' . Until you put it back where it was and where it remains appropriate - what am I supposed to do? Is this just back-door banning? Did you talk to me at the appropriate place,I don't think so but I forget because there's a whole bunch of people jumping on my hand here whatever I do. So its either you jump altogether, drive me out, or someone says the rules allow me to bring verificatory assistance to this wiki I choose to see as a contribution.

The french assumed they had the WP rule to digitally lynch me, by the way. However really it was one admin/user who insisted- actually said him or me !!. Can you believe it- totally wikipedia, pure community pressure of the worst speciesif he stays-I go.

The germans didnt even hesitate, just wiped the userpages clean. End of story- EffK banned for a 1000 days, give or take.

However the discussion and this experience goes, you people friendly and people less friendly, I know and knew the rules that Jimbo insists on, and as usual they are not being used here for me. I am being turned into the/an enemy. Jimbo strongly advises against this.

The nice friendly editors here may not wish to put themselves on the line for criminalised me,and so then it's "verification" and "good faith" be damned. For the others, being treated the way I was in america is a rule that runs here. Simple, like the germans. Show me that rule, please, if you can, in any language? The rule that says I'm banned ( for POV pushing and personal attacks for 100000 days, and FOREVER from the catholic Artilces- forever say 200,000 "days". What's a day in digital- when everything is immortal and NOW?

All that will be left , if this carries on here in nl.wp is that I shall be an outsider, but as I said to Jimbo, you can have me 'in the tent pissing out, or outside the tent pissing in'. That last means. even without knowledge of Dutch, I can determine whose politics here is what, by studying edits and their character and subject. I've met a few of you now, and all our changes to articles are all immortal and freely visible- every revert tells its story. You can't prohibit a reader, except in some far countries. I can just be a reader-free. I could have ignored this brain-pool, or come under a new free name.

At every step everyone proves their "wikipedianness". I am not ashamed of anything I have ever said in wikipedia, ever. No one here will force me to shame. Nor Jimbo. german history goes on names. when their absent, it shows. Calendars mean things, links mean things.

Now, can we have some good faith concern with the value of verifiability,as appropriate or do I just make my own report on nl.wp down the line later? It is in your own interests to be friendly and assume good faith, language permitting- people permitting.

But I am prevented from work, and sorry Torero, your brain does not fix history into bite-sized chunks or phrases. You do not determine the show, the information determines the project, by peer review, by serious social interaction based -after the good faith- on verification. Let me verify- you don't any of you do it- as I have already explained above . nl.wp' is missing a cylinder in the Hitler vehicle( circa 30 articles ). It doesn't do the job, so why refuse genuine informed help? Oh yeah- Jimbo's arbitrators ? Tell me,then ban me but be straight about it. Say my verification is no good, a page number is crap because its in my english, so he's a vandal, a lying convicted POV pushing conspiracy theorist- with page numbers-in WP itself. Dumkopf am I, to try. I'll have to go back to Jimbo, the foundation, and then the rules that run the Internet and not the "rules" that "run" this wikipedia. I believe most every country I "visit obeys these rules" and an enemy doesn't come into it. Technically I lose a currency value, which is my identity as contributor, here. My reputation is killed, I lose respect automatically from you. And you lose my assistance. Dumkopf. EffK 11 aug 2006 01:42 (CEST)

De Kroeg part 1- Jimbo and EffK and Truth[Samenszweringscomplotten]

[1] I came here to help instill the truth, verifiable truth. The whole problem comes from Jimbo, who publishes defamation against me. I verified, I sourced, I made no error, no vandalism. Jimbo ignored the truth. Legally jimbo defames me because he publishes something which he knows( I told him) is of 'reckless disregard for truth or falsity'. Jimbo publishes that I am a conspiracy theorist POV pusher. This is verifiably false, as the en.wp Pope Pius text now shows. Bengalski called this a scandal, a wikipedia scandal.

My name is prejudiced wherever I go, and I have been robbed of the capacity to contribute the truth. This is Jimbo's fear of christians. This is christians pushing disinformation in every wikipedia. I say this because I prove this. What I write is always correct because verifiable.

Even if you here go the way of Jimbo (and the french, and the germans) and block me, the truth will still be the truth. I will be forced to take Jimbo to the truth. I place the relevant publishing law , concerning the Internet, in my talk, and Jimbo will have to answer for this.

You, here, must decide for yourselves as conscient individuals if you wish to block the verifiability of my source. I have contributed greatly to Wikipedia. I alone proved that Hitler did not come to power legally, did not arrest the KPD legally. The Hitler page in en.wp says what it says because of me. The Pius page, says what it says because of me backed by Bengalski. User:Savidan protects Bengalski, and Bengalski -as you see- verifies EffK. Most other pages remain in error and editing war. I worked very hard, and am kicked in the teeth, by a cabal defending the vatican from the truth, which is that of Ludwig Kaas' secret work for Eugenio Pacelli. If you read Ludwig Kaas in en.wp, you will see that it is not in agreement with the article Pope Pius XII. Why not- because I am blocked. That is a scandal which damages Wikipedia.

When I arrived here I posted only wikipedia links, to show that most articles are in error. That is called vandalism.

I invite free people to follow the truth.

It is simple - will you also block EffK BECAUSE he insists on verifiable historical truth? EffK 8 aug 2006 11:55 (CEST)

Eentje om bij Braekmans in de rij te zetten ? --LimoWreck 8 aug 2006 14:04 (CEST)

EffK, at least be careful that you remain friendly. We (NL-community) did not block you till now. Comments about your block at EN-wiki should be sent to EN-community or to Jimbo. Please note that every language version has its own community, which communities are sometimes quite different. Jcb - Amar es servir 8 aug 2006 17:30 (CEST)

Please those who do not wish to work to improve wikipedia, do not feel you have to read this answer re firendliness in the face of revisionism. You could stop here, where I say I'm a friend. But otherwise this is serious (and I will keep Jimbo to a minimum):- Yes, I try very hard to not react to people who call me a troll, a vandal, a conspiracy theorist, or who say that I bring disnformation. I was reverted from nl.wp discussion against wp guidelines- the links were removed-when they were brought to help you , in good faith.

I am happy, Jcb, if one or all of you of you is friendly but it is an unfriendly subject of history. It is the most unfriendly subject , because it resulted within days with Adolf Hitler assuring two German Bishops, 10 April 1933,[correction=26 April, viz [2] that "I Hitler will only do to the Jews that which the Catholic Church had been trying to do for a thousand years". !0 April Paus Pius XI congratyulated hermann Goering etc].It is an unfriendly subject to have to accord the NPOV- when verified- that indeed the Chairman of the Zentrumspartei was working secretly/ and openly for Paus Pius XI in making Hitler Dictator as a defence against Bolshevism in Germany, and that this secret/open collaboration did influence the final vote of 23 march 1933, and did make Hitler a Dictator, and was against Catholic teaching (the magisterium/the canonical code). None of that is friendly, but all of it is verifiable and I should be accorded some respect by free-thinking people, for helping, for years, to bring the WP's into line with clear NPOV and correct history. It is not friendly in WP because it is a subject that involves non-stop edit war, in fact it is 'information war'. Here Paus Pius XI mentions no Concordat for 1933, mentions no vote by his sub-ordinate Monsignor Ludwig Kaas. At Paus Pius XII there is no Kaas, no vote, no collaboration, no controversy. To include it would make instant edit war.

I ask , again, for help. I wish for a translator hereto help me so I can inform this wikipedia, because the en.wp is beyond help, as are several. I ask in good faith for help from you all, and that you WILL see me as a friend to civilisation and because of that a friend to each of you. I come with information, real information that you need.

Jimbo is not my friend- he has caused all this problem by publishing the conspiracy theorist judgement and sentence- against my precise verification from William L Shirer onwards. Jimbo MUST be corrected, or the history will putrefy (rot). The wikipedia IS infected with disinformation, even here. The links I first placed in this nl.wp showed the widespread en.wp error. Hitler as a pussycat, who came to power through the legal arrest of deputies (who were sovereign). That is dangerous history- in any language. WP is becoming un-friendly to the entire world if bent votes rule or uninformed admins/sysops are frightened of the true information.

For example, nowhere will you see here that the Nuremberg Trials determined that the beginning of the rolling Conspiracy or "common plan" to Institute Totalitarian Government in Order to Wage Inhuman Aggressive War began at the banker Schroeder's house on Jan 4, when the forces of local Capitalism threw in their lot with Hitler. That is verifiable fact- they paid the bankrupt NSDAP debts, without which the Nazis would have been unable to continue in electioneering. Where is it here? It is not a detail, it is crucial history, as was Pius XI's involvement. Do a search for Kurt von Schroeder, and see if 4 January is mentioned.... NO- here it says U zocht naar Kurt von Schroeder. Same in en.wp. No reference. There is no link here in nl.wp to 'Hitler's Paus'. There is no Zentrumspartei at Adolf Hitler, therefore the entire real conspiracy is absent. That is toooo friendly- to Hitler, Jcb, surely?

Revisionism is eating Wikipedia, and I remain very civil, but I call it what it is- anti-social, anti-wp, anti-intellectual, anti-reason, anti-good faith. The revisionism is both clerical and political, but I conducted a friendly battle with several editors, which remained most civil even at the end when they combined to kill me digitally. I play civil.

Sorry to be so long- but there's no von Schroeder here', and it is all therefore justifiably long. Long-if true- is good. Short misinformation, is un-friendly to our reason. I invite someone (friendly) who reads English to help correct the relevant nl.wp articles by translation after viewing the verification, please......EffK 9 aug 2006 03:47 (CEST)

Did you use sources that can be verified by every person who wishes to do so? And did you indeed mention those sources in the English wikipedia? Bob.v.R 9 aug 2006 04:30 (CEST)

En misschien kan dit individu ook eens proberen NL praten als hij toch zo'n extreem lang vermoeidend standpunt wil maken hier in onze kroeg en zo. Trouwens, het overleg van de kroeg is de plaats niet voor discussie; gaan we een parallelle kroeg opzetten of zo ? Trouwens, als iemand toch zinnige dingen heeft, dat hij ze dan op een duidelijke gematigde manier aangeeft; we hebben al weer meer van de zonderlinge fantasten gezien die met ellenlange lappen onleesbare teksten en rare zindsconstructie de grootste samenszweringscomplotten uit de wereld willen aanvechten. Tip: begin er niet aan; je verdoet je tijd aan een lunatic; dan moeten we maar wachten tot een serieuze historicus of criticus eens zijn bijdrage kan leveren. --LimoWreck 9 aug 2006 11:42 (CEST)

Bob.v.R Affirmative, every source is visible. 'Here is example http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_.3F.3F

Every move, every day, every word, everything sourced. I have to show you some en.wp stuff to persuade you why en.wp itself is still a bad source- in error. That is itself relevant to here. Not only did I mention those sources, I linked to everything repeatedly. I had no choice but to believe there was a cabal against the history, which succeeded in banning me/and others in fr.wp solely to defeat the history. I believe there is a serious international WP problem- please help. Klaus Scholder the scholar himself says "the argument against the secret Kaas/Pacelli conspiracy is un-sustainable". Savidan obviously agrees in en.wp, as he protects it.

The magnates are just as important. However it is an unfortunate reality that this truth is harmful today, Bush's grandfather was briefly imprisoned- I think- and certainly on a list of collaboration, The church- well, that is a long story, all sourced. Wikipedia was mentioned re the Vatican on Euronews just before the death of John Paul II, with reference to a meeting of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications- [3],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EffK/Archive_2#Pontifical_Council_For_Social_Communication_Spring_2005_Media_Conferenceerence_and_the_Wikipedia]of course the vatican sees wiki software,[4] just like us. But, If they follow their own law, they have to regularise their scandal in a certain canonical way( they have in fact to report that Pius XI and PIus XII and Kaas and Papen excommunicated themselves at the act of collaboration. I never wrote this into any article, as it is original research, but it is "explanation" in discussions. Catholic censorship of history/the press -[5]. In edit war-[6]....My discussions are long precisely to give all the facts. Thankyou. Please help. Believe Bengalski- it is no conspiracy theory.Nor is it me [7]

"Cette collusion a eu lieu le 23 mars 1933. En plus, si les catholiques ont coopéré avec les nazis en vue de dissoudre les partis démocratiques, ils n'ont jamais eux-mêmes été dissous par le régime hitlérien. --GRINDIN 19 octobre 2005 à 19:26 (CEST)" (user banned from fr.wp) EffK 9 aug 2006 12:27 (CEST)

The sources are much better visible at: [8]

look at the notes. --joep zander 9 aug 2006 13:43 (CEST)

All I can say is that I have been sourceing for c 18 months, repetitively-there and everywhere. Everywhere the same experience-conspiracy theory labelled reversion by a self-confessed catholic editor. Again, the evidence of the edit war is most easily followed here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EffK#Removals_from_Wikipedia.2C_by_Str1977 with diffs given for all related removals from WP see .

You will see, now, no agreement between the User:Savidan Pius XII article, and that of Reichskonkordat. But until savidan gets around to the entire-it'll take him 3 years- the other articles remain censored. Take the Hitler article which says

"under the leadership of Ludwig Kaas, the party decided to vote for the Enabling Act. It did so in return for the government's oral guarantees regarding the Church's liberty, the concordats signed by German states and the continued existence of the Centre Party itself.

" This is wrong, against Shirer, and all reputable historians.

At Hitler , same edit warring but Bengalski tried to help. Who has the time to edit war, though?

"Hi EffK. These are the quotes from Shirer you directed me to before (the ones that were swiftly archived by Str1977): # Shirer:

"Hitler... added- with an eye to the votes of the Catholic Centre Party, which he received- that "we hope to improve our friendly relations with the Holy See". [23 March 1933]

Shirer:

"Monsignor Kaas, the party leader, had demanded a written promise from Hitler that he would repect the President's power of Veto. But though promised before the voting, it was never given. Nevertheless the Centre leader rose to announce that his party would vote for the bill."

.....Bengalski 13:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Savidan has now, at last, worked on the Reichskonkordat article, from that Bengalski verification of all that EffK was reverted and banned on. If you look at the notes/archives you will see the name Famekeeper . Famekeeper is an earlier incarnation of EffK (F and K)/ and this subjects edit warring can be viewed at [9]. it only takes one staunch catholic editor, plus one bent admin(who doesnt accept verification) and you get this ,[10]. Removals are the means of controlling WP history.

Reichskonkordat- yessir Joep Zander, like this removal of what is now there but got me banned forever from catholicism artciles !!-[11],[12], [13],[14]

[15] etc etc [16] all surrounding Ludwig Kaas (who wrote the Concordat, removed repeatedly despite sourceing such as

"Monsignor and later Bishop Pacelli was appointed Apostolic Nuncio to the German Weimar Republic in June, 1920. The now Bishop Pacelli in 1925 started to form a close relationship with his Secretary Monsignor Ludwig Kaas . Pacelli's long-standing house-keeper , Sister Pasquilina Lehnert , stated after Pacelli's death that Kaas regularly holidayed with him and was linked to him in "adoration , honest love and unconditional loyalty ." The slightly younger Kaas became an intimate collaborator in every aspect of Pacelli's vatican diplomacy in Germamy . Kaas served as secretary from 1925 and then with Pacelli's encouragement took the chairmanship of the influential catholoc Centre party Germany in 1928 . Officially Kaas , also a specialist in canon law , was the representative of democratic civil party , but one who was so attached to Pacelli that he became vitually his alter ego." etc etc [17] ,[18]

As to Hitler , same edit warring but Bengalski tried to help. Who has the time to edit war, though?

"Hi EffK. These are the quotes from Shirer you directed me to before (the ones that were swiftly archived by Str1977): # Shirer:"Hitler... added- with an eye to the votes of the Catholic Centre Party, which he received- that "we hope to improve our friendly relations with the Holy See". [23 March 1933]

"Shirer:"Monsignor Kaas, the party leader, had demanded a written promise from Hitler that he would repect the President's power of Veto. But though promised before the voting, it was never given. Nevertheless the Centre leader rose to announce that his party would vote for the bill." .....Bengalski 13:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitler article edit war : this is relevant to nl.wp article, which doesn't say enough. You can see total hypocrisy at work in this edit war at Hitler from [19]

19.06 15 dec 2005

Denialist removal by editor knowingly in wrong: unlimited bad faith,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=next&oldid=31500520,93 proved/sourced User:JKenney originally http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=prev&oldid=12790003,94,after later followed by User:JKenneyprovocative removal discussionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=12794544,95 Str1977 knows the "quid pro quo" certainly was there in the concordat negotiations http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=28017142&oldid=27969562,96, and "Centre Party's existence on bargaining table" the Kick-back scheme, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=19162910, 97. Str1977 Irrationality, abdication of Intellect, contumate bad-faith re: 19.06.

However , to understand QpQ 1 and QpQ 2's re the kick-back between the Reichskonkordat and the 23 march Act for Dictatorship, at least read Bengalski here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Pius_XII/Archive15#Quid_pro_Quo_Analyzed

I showed the contradictions and error of german imported(it is) wikipedia, a long time ago- [20]. I think the nl.wikipedia is aslo largly a german wp import. The whole busines of countering disinforamtion on wikipedias is a pain in the head. Only a sense of responsibility to prevent lies taking hold can excuse the waste of time. it would help if the arbcoms banned the disinformers -the revisionaist denialists.

I gave sources at Hitler/discussion for the magnates. I'll help with more, but in return I'd like to see that I EffK am not attacked. If you see an attack on me, how about you stop the attacks? Help defend the truth....

Mr EffK, I asked you if the edits you were trying to make on the en-wikipedia, and which seemed to be not appreciated by other people on the english wikipedia, were backed by sources. Ofcourse in my question I meant sources outside wikipedia. Bye, Bob.v.R 9 aug 2006 16:07 (CEST)

Dear EffK, apart from your erroneous title here (Truth with capital T - like there would be one religious or otherwise dogmatic truth), I (and I guess the others as well) am quite willing to listen to your comments and the relation between the Roman Catholic Church and the nazis is according to me not something to be hidden. The only one thing I ask from and suggest to you, is to come with shortly phrased quotes from reliable external sources which support the claims you are making all over the Wikipedias. As soon as you will be able to do this, people will actually start listening to you and no "Truth" will be hidden (anymore). Do we have a deal in this? Cheers, Torero 9 aug 2006 16:23 (CEST)

Ach Torero, mensen als dit hebben meer dan een vijs los; probeer daar niet mee te redeneren, want die zijn hopeloos. Ik verwees al eerder in de kroeg naar Mark Peeters (zie zijn site http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1917/ ); daar is geen beginnen aan. Sommige leken zijn opeens bezeten van hun wereldschokkend idee; en je mag nog zo proberen te redeneren ermee wat ge ook maar wil; ze zijn hopeloos. Een lichtere versie hier was Gebruiker:Wim Hamhuis; ook die man plakte lappen gefilosofeer neer, maar niemand die er kop of staart kon aan knopen; ondanks zovele pogingen van mensen om hem op weg te helpen. Ik zou zeggen; verdoe je tijd niet aan een stukje freak als die niet eens het Nederlands machtig is, laat staan leesbaar engelse teksten kan brouwen. Als er ergens in zijn complottheorieën iets zit komt er wel eens een of andere academicus of journalist met theorieën aandraven, waar een mens wel zijn weg in kan vinden... Maar proberen dialoog aan te gaan met weirdo's als dit, of hun gedrag/dialoog/inhoud proberen te verbeteren is hopeloos en frustrerend en nutteloos heb ik in het verleden ervaren ;-) Leuke lectuur voor even leveren zo'n mensen op, meer tijd zijn ze echt niet waard ;-) --LimoWreck 9 aug 2006 16:43 (CEST)

Beste collega's, Ik zie dat effk niet effectief communiceert maar volgens mij hebben jullie mijn opmerking hierboven ook niet gelezen; The sources are much better visible at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#Reichskonkordat]look at the notes. --joep zander 9 aug 2006 13:43 (CEST)Oftewel, in het Nederlands; daar staan de door hem onder andere bedoelde noten. Deze noten zijn verwijzingen naar boeken. Ik constateer dat effk een helder zicht op de zaken zelf frustreert door het toevoegen vam lappen moeilijjk leesbare tekst. Desalniettemin zit er iets in. --joep zander 10 aug 2006 09:12 (CEST) @ limowreck: zie http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Joep_Zander#De_valkuilen_van_waarheidsvindingjoep zander 10 aug 2006 10:20 (CEST)

Er geldt ook zoiets als en:WP:OR om van WP niet teveel een platform te maken om eigen theorieën te propageren... Zaken aahalen of algemene beschrijvingen geven, ja; maar op basis van enkele bronnen een volledige theorie uitbouwen -al dan niet in balans met de neutraliteit van het artikel- ? Laat hem het dan eens proberen in het Nederlands, en met beknopte leesbare tekst. En zoals dat individu hieronder weer laat blijken, neutraliteit is er helemaal niet, bevooroordeling des te meer, en de man is op een eenzijdige kruistocht tegen weet ik veel wat --LimoWreck 10 aug 2006 11:19 (CEST)

I have now put the story at discussion /Hitler. I will be placing external sources by links to where those external sources are now placed internally in en.wikipedia. They are all in english , except for the minutes of the mmeting at 11.30 of the Zentrums, translated by Str1977 from german. If you guys prefer, the text can be put into bite sized sentences per paragraph making it appear to be short phrases, but the length wont get much shorter. The propensity towards making all articles into a kind of "simple wikipedia" is stoopid. To expect to simplify what happened even more, when the Nuremburg Trials filled a factory full of documents, is not clever. I appear to be being criticised here above, tho I cannot understand, but I expect those who have 3 level english to make any attack or criticism of me known to me directly. And sure , Torero, there is one dogmatic truth in this history-what actually happened. The only extent of change is to receive new facts. This is nothing to do with religion, but to answer you yes , in the Catholic Church also, there is one truth (to catholics): it is the magisterium and Canonical Law. What was done was catholically illegal, is illegal, and rightly so. It is only relevant to those who are catholics/were catholics. It is not part of the Constitutional Law. I will never bend on the legality of Reichstag Deputy arrest, which was illegal under the provisions of the Weimar Constitution. Also the Communist party was never illegalised by Hitler. There was a Law brought in that illegalised new political parties, but the KPD was never illegalised. Ciau. EffK 10 aug 2006 11:01 (CEST)

Met deze manier van discussiëren maakt hij het zichzelf niet echt makkelijk. Het verhaal is te lang, niet to the point, hij reageert niet helder op vragen, en het wordt absoluut onvoldoende duidelijk of hij NPOV schrijft. Ik zie geen heil in verdere discussie, en ik kan me moeilijk voorstellen dat er iemand zijn suggesties in het Nederlands wil overzetten en opnemen in artikelen. Ciao. Bob.v.R 10 aug 2006 12:49 (CEST)

Meer vervelend geleuter verplaatst van een foutieve plaats

Volgende lap tekst is verplaatst uit Overleg Wikipedia:De kroeg--LimoWreck 11 aug 2006 12:22 (CEST)

I am fulfilling the above request to reference and source the facts , at Hitler overleg, but I am told to exit nl.wp. I take this as un-friendly, so please the person who said this was a 'friendly community' here, help me to complete the other nl.wikipedian's referencing request here above. I am completing the referencing, and do not like this tratment of my good will. Please help protect this work-made for future translation. please uphold the friendliness of the 'community'..EffK 10 aug 2006 14:32 (CEST)

I'm confused or maybe I missed out on something. Who told you to exit nl.wp and where did he/she tell you this? I merely see someone stating that your "overleg" page is too large and that it needs to be deleted (in this form). The nl-wikipedia isn't meant to dump all your previous discussions, is it? Just back the stuff up on your computer and make the (preferrably short) reference list. I'm sure people will have a look at it then. Regards, Martijn ^→!?← 10 aug 2006 14:40 (CEST)

• Overleg:Adolf Hitler(Verschil tussen wijzigingen)Ga naar: navigatie, zoek Versie op 4 aug 2006 15:25 (wijzig) SanderSpek (Overleg |bijdragen)(revert. What's the purpose of this?) Discussion was reverted, contrary to WP guidelines- or is it vandalsim to inform via WP-links?

• (huidig) (vorige) 10 aug 2006 12:16 Willem Huberts (Overleg | bijdragen) (This is Wikipedia-NL, so please use Dutch or leave - ongedocumenteerde, ongefundeerde en incoherente woordenbrij verwijderd)

• 10 aug 2006 14:43 (gesch) (wijz) Overleg:Adolf Hitler (This is Wikipedia-NL, so please use Dutch or leave - ongedocumenteerde, ongefundeerde en incoherente woordenbrij verwijderd) (laatste wijziging)

• notice User EffK, I strongly advice you to stop with this. The is the Dutch language wikipedia, not the English, not a place to come when you are blocked on EN. --Walter 10 aug 2006 15:04 (CEST) Stop means leave, logically.

To elaborate on my revert, you just dumped a large incomprehensible text, at the time still without any explanation of what the purpose of that text was. Reverting nonsense (what it defintely was at the time) is completely coherent with WP guidelines.

And again, please keep discussions at the appropriate place. This discussion page is not the appropriate place. Sander Spek (overleg) 10 aug 2006 19:52 (CEST)

I repeat this entire EffK -dumkopf stuff at my EffK:Overleg. My immediate answer to this variable community manner of nl.wikipedia is long, so I;ll leave it there. Awaiting an honest broker. I mean every word I say. Anyone who has a conscience to care knows where to go. I sure don't know, and I see double standards here, and that I can't win whatever I do. However friendly or appropriate, I am always the wikipedia criminal. nl.wp-I say get your act together and either obey your Jimbo guide-lines, or make your own version. Tell me if there is a consensus, otherwise I'm back there muzzled by reversions, and will just absorb what I see. EffK the international geblokked? Automatic excommunication for EffK here, too? Or just muck-up my head with half -banning, and half rules? Grrrr- you-make-me -the-enemy? Read the long answer- suck it and see. Where's the friendly ? My work was prohibited at Hitler Overleg, good honest verification prohibited. Ciau EffK 11 aug 2006 02:20 (CEST)

Administrator help still required.Example: Whatever about SanderSpek being right to characterise those early links back to incorrect wp articles, I was in the end prevented from giving the references at the appropriate place, at Hitler discussion for Hitler. The reversion of that was either justified because made in English, or the reversion(excision) was itself vandalism. Either way, I needed the Bullock reference here at the nl.wp Reichstag Fire page discussion-[21]. Do you all say nothing to that sourceing excision? I believe that to force veriability, by force of wiki law, I should provide translation of all source texts, that is, to force it into the main article space. But that is not the same as good faith desire to influence good-will users with an english written discussion sourceing. You either see that things are incorrect and wish to help, and stop reverters, or not. I request an admin to revert my sourceing full text twice reverted at those Hitler discussions. This is where it was 'vandalised-reverted'-[22]. EffK 11 aug 2006 12:12 (CEST)

Revert

I reverted this edit, because it didn't have anything to do with the subject of the page. Please search for the right places, because it's really clownish just to drop your comment to random places all over Wikipedia. Jcb - Amar es servir 11 aug 2006 14:14 (CEST)

answer was Yr duty is to wp, and if I show-as I have , that I can contribute correction(in English) then why wouldn't you advise me in a constructive manner? if you believe c) why not open the ban? Being half banned is a drag. I read the entire WP rules, lately , and they were translated into french, so I know there's no rule saying I'm automatically banned-the reverse. I look for reason , still , meaning historical reason re HIlter, not me . Who gives a toss about me, I'm not important. But to classify the subject as a conspiracy dream is an historical insult to all who died, several in my family, and perhaps yours. Thatt won't do. Ciau, and waiting...for reason/social rules of reasonEffK 11 aug 2006 14:32 (CEST)

Bullet points

If you would have reacted to my bullet points, you wouldn't have to fall over a Calimero-type of "personal attack". I kept it very neat and suggested you things and asked you stuff. Your only reaction was about my "attack". It means you are here to clown around and not for serious discussion or references. Pity. Torero 11 aug 2006 14:27 (CEST)

Lets be short , you guys want it . I say bull to that because here's the reason. Yoour wikipedia here is full of the same shite as the others. Revisionist shite. You want a bullet point go to [23] Stpo your bad faith attacks and join the light, Torero. Anfd the word pity seems disingenuous. The pity is you guys.[ from message to this user, as this is a future EffK archive] archive was

An example of a bullet point-retrieved from a vandalism on me(not by me) is at [24]. That as you will see was but one vital bullet point of the 500 that joined together to be the correct Hitler text, reverted twice, gone.. there you go, be persuaded, stop being irrational- the proof is given to you, the good faith is shown. Please Stop your bad faith attacks and join the light, Torero. And the word pity seems disingenuous. The pity is you guys, actually. To not accept the bullet point puts your wp-morals in an awkward position, actually. Please come to the light. First thing is to believe verification, second is to protect me from vandal reversion and allow my work, 3 is to see the wikipedia properly tell the real history. Then we'll be all friendly. I'm sick of verification being called crap, clowning, conspiracy etc. Unreal...wikipedia become itself no more than a social danger. Hitler fucking well legalised by wikipedians. Communists illegalised by wikipedians. "Unreal...EffK 11 aug 2006 15:00 (CEST)

If there's someone here who had good faith in you and supports the idea of good faith in general, it's me. But you never replied to what I was asking for. You keep going around in circles and your semi-religious talk about "join the light" which is favourite amongst conspiracy theory lovers makes me puke. I do care about facts, references and a search for a "truth". I do not about clowns, religion or any other unscientific blabla. I hope you understand that. Tschuess, Torero 11 aug 2006 14:50 (CEST)

What bla bla ?- there you go again. Stop these roundabout attacks. "Had" faith- you retract ? Circles? -imposed by these user/vandal/ad hominem attackers. This is wrong. I am the same old wikipedia "Litmus test"- sorry I have no Dutch dictionary. Means dip me in the wp waters, and see the stinking rotten way it is. I advise you to stop criticising me, and try seeing the verification as king. Unreal...EffK 11 aug 2006 15:00 (CEST)

This message is to let you know I delete your comments off my Overleg. I've done the best I could. Bye! Torero 11 aug 2006 15:04 (CEST)

Ik heb het u gezegd hé Torero, er is geen beginnen aan zo'n individuen, een echte nutcase ;-) --LimoWreck 11 aug 2006 18:04 (CEST)

Suggestion

A good place for your theories and verifications would be: Gebruiker:EffK/Hitler. Please collect there all the facts and the verifications you're wanting to tell us in a well-organized way. When you've finished to do that, please notify us with a short message in our Village pump, with a link to Gebruiker:EffK/Hitler. After that there will be interested users, reading your page and your verifications and where needed changing the articles. I think this is the best way to help us creating a good encyclopedia and it's also the best way to avoid conflicts. Greetings, Jcb - Amar es servir 11 aug 2006 15:12 (CEST)

I already wrote the correct text at Hitler Overleg, I was in the process of verifying every damned snippet to sources, and I'm reverted. That was the appropriate place. I think it is wrong to revert that work, and anyway it is finished as text. All it needs is to finish the referncing so good wikipedians can avail of the verified info , and themselves adjust the article. Please do not use the word theories- that is ad hominem. I don't tell you you have a 'theory'- if you show proof.

One law for you and another for me? Already I required that same verification from within that text to go over at the nl.wp Reichstag Fire page. It seems like the child must be locked in his room, cos he don't speak dutch, and bothers the priveliged adults the adults . Well the child shouts that the emperor(wikipedia) has no clothes. By the way how come I get personal attacks right beside a post you made at De Kroeg- a high-class attack, but you say nothing? I begin to see that it is more than history itself here that needs sorting. I am the stupidest man on the internet, according to Limowreck. This is not the first attack, and just the worst, and you think I should have faith in 'good' wikipedians visting me locked away? Show me a good wikipedian , and I'll show you the blood dripping from his nose. Its a jungle with the morals of a monkey troupe: gang beatings, lies and self interest. Anybody with half a brain, such as french Felipeh, just steers clear of the monkeys. it is your duty to report personal attacks, and fix that monkey behaviour. please go to Hitler/or an admin and revert the reversion of my correct finished text at Hitler Overleg. that is a duty to the proper function of the nl.wp. Then I'll know I can trust one user.EffK 11 aug 2006 22:10 (CEST)

I too believe in friendliness, and I am being told I cannot complete the referencing/sourceing at Hitler:Overleg. The referencing was requested by another nl.wp user after you spoke at Kroeg, and I ask you very kndly to see that I can complete this exact referencing. I write there in orderthat a true nl.wikipedian can some day translate and correct the Hitler article. If a foreigner is dis-allowed here, why do people occasionally use english? Is it just me who is the problem, and if so why, if not prejudice against referencing? I think this is un-friendly, and more. Please protect my work by writing to the reverters ...it would be a kindness. EffK 10 aug 2006 14:38 (CEST)

Well- I don't actually want to be a clown. I thought that moderators helped disputes. I have a dispute because I'm reverted to hell. Please suggest a place where a Maartens can be joined by users/sysops such that a decision can be made. You know that I am reverted on the verifications, and I'm a clown in the wilderness. But the verifications are good, the facts are all true, it aint a theory, and therefore Im getting this shit a)against verification or b) against english use or c) cos of arbcom-jimbo.

if its a) its anti-wp if its b) its without a rule- I dont try and edit mainspace and I come in good faith asking for reason, ie pro-wp correction via a) , or if its c) lets just say its arbcom/Jimbo and ban me.

Yr duty is to wp, and if I show-as I have , that I can contribute correction(in English) then why wouldn't you advise me in a constructive manner? if you believe c) why not open the ban? Being half banned is a drag. I read the entire WP rules, lately , and they were translated into french, so I know there's no rule saying I'm automatically banned-the reverse. I look for reason , still , meaning historical reason re HIlter, not me . Who gives a toss about me, I'm not important. But to classify the subject as a conspiracy dream is an historical insult to all who died, several in my family, and perhaps yours. Thatt won't do. Ciau, and waiting...for reason/social rules of reasonEffK 11 aug 2006 14:32 (CEST)

I don't want to pay for "trust". People who know me may trust me because they know me. You cannot conditionally trust someone. You trust someone or you don't trust someone. And about de word "theory", in Dutch science this is not a loaded word. For I am not familiar with history, I will leave this subject. I just tried to give you some suggestions about how to work more effective at NL.wiki. Jcb - Amar es servir 12 aug 2006 00:41 (CEST)

Theory in my case is an insult that is always used, to dismiss verifiable facts. Yes you are right,perhaps about trust building but you allow mistrust to build, all of you, by not following the guidelines. I have absolutely no hard feelings to you. I am sorry for the situation I find, and sorry that there is not more responsibility. This was above all an exercise in content. The state of nl.wp shows that anyone perhaps except the dreaded EffK might be able to contribute, but it is obvious that I may not. At least I left the story-which I guess your grandchildren one day will read, of how civilisation was sold. As to the project here, it appears to me, as an experienced wikipedian, that the management and users here are unable to behave in the manner foreseen as necessary by the mother project. It is not your fault that you fell ,all including you, into the trap that Jimbo's wrongful inaction created. Have a nice time though, and well, watch your back. EffK 12 aug 2006 01:58 (CEST)

Verification moderation

from http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_Wikipedia:Regelingen_rond_moderatoren&diff=prev&oldid=4876618 ,

If I put a verification , as requested, why is that classed as vandalism-to be reverted. Why is it legal here to revert verification, and attack the user who shows verification? I know that without translation, that the verification is subject to other user's use of good faith to accept or reject the info in an article but- why is it vandalism when it awaits translation and rests in discussion?

I request moderation to stop the classification of verification as vandalism, and to revert to the verifications I began in good faith at Hitler Overleg. If I am the vandal, then I should be banned. EffK 11 aug 2006 13:20 (CEST)

• (huidig) (vorige) 11 aug 2006 13:20 EffK (Overleg | bijdragen) (→Verification - Why is verification = vandalism ?)

• (huidig) (vorige) 11 aug 2006 14:11 Jcb (Overleg | bijdragen) (Revert, please finally search for the right places for your comments)

This sort of action just slightly contradicts the self-professed goodwill. The nl.wp manner is rather odd, superficially civilised, but gleefully unhelpful ...!

Can you please explain what our procedure about the election and re-election of moderators has to do with Hitler? I really don't understand why you placed your comments at the talkpage of that particular procedure. One other thing: please reply just here. I will read your reply on this page, please don't drop your reaction at two places. Jcb - Amar es servir 12 aug 2006 02:50 (CEST)

Well- I was looking for some civilised guidance, I got the wrong moderator page, didn't I? Forget about it Jcb, I see Andre Engels, perhaps rightly, says take it up with en.wp(Jimbo is where it'll end). Jimbo's little henchmen are worthless, and used to have to warn Jimbo directly. You guys are gonna miss me, they always do. And I'm not dropping my reaction in two places, I'm saving ALL reactions, This is a report, one of many, or call it afuture exhibition-the rot of memory-world memory as pushed for the big Jimbo . I tell you , you are darn lucky you don't get history, cos if you did, you'd be frightened. It's not even that the nl.wp is full or even has many history editors- it doesn't have to, it repeats the same revisionist rot that exited-I think- from de.wp, into en.wp. and also into nl.wp, fr.wp, it.wp etc etc. it is pernicious, even before you find , and prove by your experience, that the revisionists are joined by the anti-liberal catholic editors, the breton national fascists, the front national and the german apologists. You be happy Jcb, but I tell you I know I am doing my social duty in all nations by showing up the rot for what it is. I will be back, to Jimbo. It may mean the end of wikipedia, but if it is hi-jacked that may be the least worst out-come. I mean I am the proof. Or will be. Listen Hitler's OK, go to bed, have sweet dreams, don't worry yourself about moderation, I expect no good now, here, after Limowreck/Walter style interactions. Admins stick together, arbitrators are human, everyone cares for the little Wikipedia political standing they cultivate, and those who see the light ALL get banned. no one here will stick his/her neck out. Funny- I was beginning to understand the gist of the De Kroeg discussions about me, and see that several users recognise there is a contradiction. But Jimbo will find that as they say in the States, what goes down, comes round. Yes, I'm sorry but you are a part of this, but not a bad part, and yes, you could consider that I have used you in a long slow return match with Great Jimbo in the Sky. Mind your back Jcb...EffK 12 aug 2006 03:16 (CEST)

Quality class personal Attak

This is great, its as good as being called a schizophrenic with writing disability. Ad hominem, no. Gross.

• Wat een hopeloos geval, een man met een missie blijkbaar...link werkt voorlopig even niet  ; en dat is het enige dat hij duidelijk maakt ;-) --LimoWreck 10 aug 2006 15:07 (CEST) (from De Kroeg)

• together with the above een echte nutcase, I consider this user Limowreck calls for active moderation and censure. Lets see if nl.wp has any governance at all...EffK 11 aug 2006 23:05 (CEST)

Geen persoonlijke aanvallen

[from Limowreck page, c his rv of EffK. Oh -my! Eve is a "moderator"!]]

Hallo Limowreck, hoezeer je het wellicht met iemand oneens zou kunnen zijn, zou je je misschien toch met iets meer respect kunnen opstellen. Bij deze de vraag om, wanneer je met of tegen gebruiker Effk praat, dat op een iets andere toon te doen. Persoonlijke aanvallen en snerende opmerkingen sieren je niet. Groet, eVe ￨ Roept u maar! 11 aug 2006 23:15 (CEST)

Oh, die man IS dan ook gewoon een hopeloos geval; hij is al op 2 wiki's geblockt, en ook op enkele andere WP's is hij geloof ik nu nog actief en weet men er geen weg mee. Nu merk je hier wederom: mensen als Torero zijn erg geïnteresseerd; hebben echt openlijk hun best gedaan om die man op weg te helpen duidelijk te zijn; maar botsen op een muur. Ik zou niet weten waar ik een persoonlijke aanval heb gemaakt; enkel een constatering van wat iedereen vaststelt ;-), je moet maar eens die link volgen ergens die de man als aanval zag, en je zult gelijkaardige internet-fenomenen aantreffen ;-) --LimoWreck 12 aug 2006 16:02 (CEST)

Judging his edits the Limo seems to possess some abstruse electrical function.

Moderator reaction to,

I am sorry to bother you but I have had enough outrageous personal attack from particluarly Limowreck, but others too. It is beyond the permissable, and I seek moderation prior to whatever becomes necessary. I have told this user that he has gone beyond attack and into personal defamation. Would you as appropriate pass this as a request to whoever does moderating, whoever protects this particular wikipedia from abuse, as this is becoming very dangerous. The justification for this defamation goes to the top, via en.wp arbcom- to Jimbo. I do not think anyone has the right to these level of attacks. I am very sorry to call on you, but it appears you are at a serious level. I had to warn Jimbo that he was allowing a defamation of me, publishing it, and this is the result. Yes, I can prove everything- if there is a place where reason allows proof to persuade. I am not a nutcase, but someone who attempted and in large part succeeded in correcting wikipedia articles. I am not a theorist because I always reference source, but I annoy the hell out of certain christians, and the essence comes down to that. In hope, just, EffK 11 aug 2006 22:56 (CEST)

As far as I can see, your issue is on the English Wikipedia. You are not even able to speak Dutch. We're making the Dutch-language Wikipedia here, we are not here to herd the fallen people from the English Wikipedia. Discuss your problem with the people from the English Wikipedia, and if that doesn't work, bad luck. I feel no need for us to solve your problems. - André Engels 11 aug 2006 22:59 (CEST)

The overall point is fair enough but your tolerance of personal attack is not OK, and suggests that the projcet you are building is unable to police civility and Jimbo's rules on good faith and verifiability. Your choice. Don't worry about me, as I am frankly more worried for all of you. EffK 12 aug 2006 01:40 (CEST)

Big nl.wp Cheese

Stopping EffK

Ok- I will go, when the referencing ans source requested by nl.user Torero is done. I come here and show that nl.artciles are incorrect/incomplete and I am to be criminalised? Why not assume good faith. Please go and see the references I place at Hitler's Overleg, and then- say I am a criminal who must stop. Just look- does it look to you like the acts of a criminal? Please assume good faith, and allow the Jimbo guide which is that a user should not be criminalised and made into an enemy. What is it with people- do they wish and prefer to be disinformed ? Please show good faith towards good faith work. Please help, and please allow Torero to be proved correct, and the othernl.wikipdian, who said you are a "friendly community". If you wish to immediately block and blank me, because you decide that I am here solely because I cannot work on en.wp, you may have the power or wish, but you are also preventing ggod faith contribution, and re-inforcing the fact that Jimbo has turned me into an international pariah or digital-criminal against verifiability. So , Walter- what is it that I must stop, exactly? Referencing verifiability? Speaking english ? being EffK? EffK 10 aug 2006 15:16 (CEST)

• reverted from userpage Walter

Stopping EffK, part 2

You may think that you do not have to treat a supposed criminal like me with respect, but that is not the wikipedia way(or should not be). it appeasr to be rather too easy for you. What is your problem ? You wrote to me

You are blocked by the EN arbcom. You are exporting your POV to wikipedia communities, not only NL, whose languages you do not speak. NL has its own problem users. Banded users from EN we do not need. You ask what you should do; If you are really going to do what you say you will do, leaving, that will be fine. --Walter 10 aug 2006 15:32 (CEST)

I told you I would complete the referencing and sourceing that was civilly asked of me by Torero. Do you deny Torero that sourceing, and if so why? I say show me the Law that removes me from here, either for language , of for en.wp arbcom ? Can you Show civility ? Civility does not remove posts which are made in good faith, even on discussion pages. Say I am a vandal then you can do so. You are edit warring at Adolf Hitler:Overleg, preventing good faith verification.EffK 10 aug 2006 15:43 (CEST)

This is hopefully a final message to you. I see that you are a big-cheese here, which surpises me, as your actions were entirely contrary to the WP norms. As you appear to be part of the administration it would hardly be wise to ask for any assistance to investigate those actions, so I shall leave you just with the fact that I shall remember your name, along with Limowreck. Your behaviour is rather more precise than Limowreck, but is anti-social. Your accusation of POV pushing is useful, and derivative of Jimbo's publishing medusa, and a repeated defamation. You happily contribute to that, of which you may be proud, but which Jimbo should not. I would prefer not to dwell on Limowreck, whose name will be etched into my memory until the Jimbo showdown. So, goodbye, as your regulations are in your own hands, therefore they are already closed to me. Enjoy your power.EffK 12 aug 2006 02:49 (CEST)

EffK- to a nl.user re Wikipedia

A website is even more dangerous.If you read this-you can keep it or delete it, as I'm straightaway saving it to my report on my discussion. or perhaps not- an anonymous is trying to prevent storage of my nl.wp stuff at my page, so I will send this to your page, for some safety. i am under anonymous attack back at my page. I don't at all distrust you , its not you, but I am rv'd everywhere even by supposedly civilised nl.wp users, and I will need this info oneday, as every move is evidence. Your points are , of course , valid.

Trouble is, I have been trained by a cabal. It's a wikipedia repository, it aint personal, and actually- I don't want to be *******'d. It's not me who coined the word info-war, but comes from an ex-priest fighting sex abuse in the states. But info-war it was/is- for me, and at least 2 banned users in fr.wp. I think I have done pretty well not to really freak, actually. Any study of the excisions that systematically followed me, from faith-led users, and how it took a year to effect like one article after I was banned (User:Bengalski went to a uni library to prove me right) would show you what I am up against. No, you see here that I am definitely not right. There are no protections for a convicted wikipedian like me, it is open season on EffK who is, to quote Limowreck, the stupidest guy on the net, nutcase etc etc. I am sure you wouldn't like to suffer the personal abuse, being called a schizophrenic after I voluntarily left, being tracked and talked about as to location. Sure I can dig your points, but when all , even referenced material is removed from discussions,like here in nl.wp- well you get back to the original situation- a whitewashed wiki. I showed, here, links to prove that what I was banned for is now gospel wikipedia. i was banned for less than what is now the standard , but that's OK, for 'them' cos the other articles are still washed, it's a rear-guard action. Only for bengalski and the strong User:Savidan, well, archiving is an offensive weapon int he war, too. Like, I was banned for life- for being 'right'. Then I come here, and its open season-bang bang. Limowreck needs a rap, according to WP itself, so who's gonna do it? No one. Limowreck isn't 'them', hes a techie, out of his depth, he doesn't 'get' it, and-in AGF- just could be wilfully nasty, like a power trip, add a bit more charge to the torture current. I am prohibited from contributing even the referenced correct info here. Ask yourself, Jero, is that the WP you want? Maybe you aint into history, but that's not the point- referencing source is supposed to earn the contribution, not private emailing between cabalists. So I learn to fight how I can, retain info, spread the info, guard the info, make some connection to 'real' people. However the battle is against a real crowd, with a real directive and hierarchy-not WP- with their own laws, their own salaries and pensions, and they are scared to hell by the wiki-software. It all started with the page called Hitler's Pope, and they held conferences in shiny new buildings and put up their own web-pages with instructions. Now there is a WP within the WP, a whole project that is eating into what you and I thought was the project, in the intelligentsia parlance, they have 'turned' or are trying, and in terms of content largely succeeding, in 'turning' WP, certainly the en.wp/fr.wp. Of course, it is the same logic that had me post the HPope page myself- its the software. There's reams and reams of discussion about this, but only I have had the straight direct experience of how its done . I tried alerting Fred Bauder thru Wikinfo, and showed that even 'vandalsim' is a ploy they use, purposefully , to build the repairing user-image, the guy who comes to fix the phoney vandalsim, reverts to the cabal member, who looks like a good wikipedian. So then of course, following the AGfaith, the sysops don't want to believe they have their ranks infiltrated, and gradually you see the 'bent' few sysops applying for Arb status. Robert McClenon-deceased ,gone after he 'did' me is a perfect example, infiltrate, learn solely the rules, then use the rules to stick it to the recalcitrant liberals, jus one long litany of RfC's and Arbitrations, and of course, he looked like a helper, until well, 'they' pulled the plug on his name- it failed because he had become too obvious.

The war is the same war that ever was, it didnt start with the wikipedia, it just is here as a result of the software. Before it was in books and academia. Take care, and thanks anyway. EffK 12 aug 2006 19:28 (CEST)

Style issue a form of ad hominem

Do you expect people to seriously keep on reading your stuff? Instead of victimising yourself on every wikipedia that there is, maybe there could have been some self-reflection about the lengths and the style of your texts. But I suppose that you will say that I'm asking too much now. If you didn't get that by now, I suppose you will not get it in the future. Bob.v.R 13 aug 2006 07:30 (CEST)

At 5 am, I awoke to my radio (which I had left on) and a historian called Neil ? Ferguson was being interviewed . He rightly pointed out that it was WWI that drove subsequent history. Perhaps you are not aware of how the German High Command sent Lenin to foment revolution ? Anyway Ferguson then made the statement that with Weimar, "Hitler was an inevitable outcome". This is basically the WP's interwiki presentation. It is POV and contrary to verification. I did not invent Klaus Scholder, ot the Megamemex Humanitas Timeline, I did not write Hindenburg: The Wooden Titan, I am not Edgar Ansel Mowrer, nor am I Cornwell, I did not compose the Canonical Code. What I do is I reference these sources. I am clearly victimised in wikipedias because of the referencing,and it is clear ad hominem diversion from the real correct history. I am right, and NPOV, and civil, and verified. You are correct that I am long-winded, but the short presentations at all the pages in wkipedias, all have problems. Here also. Hitler was not leghal, nor inevitable- it was a rolling conspiracy, and the banker Schroeder, is not recognised. The Magnates' part not reognised, the papal part not recognised. I am doing you, Bob, a big favour. Go to Savidan's repair to Reichskonkordat, and tell me Bengalski is not correct in his analysis, that I am victimised because an international cabal fears the truth. Your contribution appears to be zero progress. You do not understand- the issue of style is ad hominem however true in itself. EffK 13 aug 2006 13:24 (CEST)

EffK wrote at discussion Bob.v.R section Style issue a form of ad hominem'

I answer you to that effect. EffK 13 aug 2006 13:26 (CEST)

Case closed. Bob.v.R 13 aug 2006 13:33 (CEST)

I fail to understand you, please be clear.EffK 13 aug 2006 13:57 (CEST)

On your 'overlegpagina' you made it clear that you will not get my point. Some people, like myself, Torero and others, tried to give you advices, but you prefer to be a victim. Further effort from my side seems at this moment completely useless, therefor 'case closed'. Bob.v.R 13 aug 2006 14:09 (CEST)

The kind Torero wanted bullet points, I gave facts, and verification. I , or you, cannot be forced to appear in the wrong because a subject is complex. Your advice was also to reflect on length. That is off- topic. The original topic is that a good faith text was removed as being vandalism. Even before that the text of Klaus Scholder, written by another user, not me, was removed as vandalism. Therefore , sorry, you are wrong. I'll agree it may be pointless to discuss this with you, but that is not the close of the topic, by any means. You can leave the subject anytime you like. In fact you Bob wrote:

• Did you use sources that can be verified by every person who wishes to do so? And did you indeed mention those sources in the English wikipedia? Bob.v.R 9 aug 2006 04:30 (CEST)

• Mr EffK, I asked you if the edits you were trying to make on the en-wikipedia, and which seemed to be not appreciated by other people on the english wikipedia, were backed by sources. Of course in my question I meant sources outside wikipedia. Bye, Bob.v.R 9 aug 2006 16:07 (CEST)

EffK wrote, being short---:Bob.v.R Affirmative, every source is visible. 'Here is example http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_.3F.3F

• Met deze manier van discussiëren maakt hij het zichzelf niet echt makkelijk. Het verhaal is te lang, niet to the point, hij reageert niet helder op vragen, en het wordt absoluut onvoldoende duidelijk of hij NPOV schrijft. Ik zie geen heil in verdere discussie, en ik kan me moeilijk voorstellen dat er iemand zijn suggesties in het Nederlands wil overzetten en opnemen in artikelen. Ciao. Bob.v.R 10 aug 2006 12:49 (CEST)

Bob, you may be impatient, you may even dispute my good faith, you may see that the link I provided included a en.wp link [ref KvKlemperer @ [25] to show such as you verificatory source provided at en.wp, in text prohibited here[26], you may see that now the text for correction is absent from Hitler:Overleg [27], you may allow that verification is prohibited in nl.wp (it is right now ), and you may be doing me a great injustice. But heh, you want out, so I cannot stop you being un-just to me. As I supect you will remove this, I will preserve it. A good wikipedian would go immediately to AH:Oveleg and replace the verifications I made, and thank me for my contribution. If you did so, you would r-place the link to en.wp I made, and encourage me to fulfill every dammed bullet point verification Torero and you required .But no, that text is not visible, no contribution is visible. But heh, I'm not worth it, cause I'm long ( and I have many people and a big theme to address). I repeat-be good enough to protect referenced NPOV contributions. EffK 13 aug 2006 16:04 (CEST)

Stopping EffK part 3

Ik verzoek om Gebruiker:EffK te blokken. Reden: Hij is al geblokt op twee of drie anderstalige Wiki's, reageert nauwelijks op overleg, althans, hij reageert wel met een reactie, maar het is geen antwoord op de vraag. Hij houdt ellenlange betogen. Wellicht bedoelt ie het goed, maar je kan toch niet werken met deze man/vrouw? Daarnaast maakt hij van iedere verplaatsing of verwijdering een gigantisch punt. Buttonfreak 13 aug 2006 02:02 (CEST)

Bovenstaande is geen reden tot blokkade. - Jeroenvrp 13 aug 2006 04:14 (CEST)

Bovenstaande vindt Jeroenvrp geen reden tot blokkade... :rolleyes: Torero 13 aug 2006 10:59 (CEST)

Eens met Jeroen, geen reden tot blokkade. -x^@ndr 13 aug 2006 11:06 (CEST)

Eens met Jeroen, als we iedereen zouden blokkeren die we wat lastig vinden... hmmm.... - eVe ￨ Roept u maar! 13 aug 2006 11:09 (CEST)

En dit is bovendien een gebruiker die veel belangrijke en nuttige, om niet te zeggen onmisbare bijdragen levert [28], die willen we toch niet kwijt? Daar willen we best emmers energie in steken. - Aiko 13 aug 2006 11:25 (CEST)

Tja het Sadomasochistisch gehalte is weer hoog. Er zijn mensen die al geleerd hebben van samenwerken met die persoon. En die hebben hun conclusie al getrokken. Nee wat zeggen wij betweterige NL'ers wij willen de man nog een kans geven. Zucht Wae®th^tm©2006 | overleg 13 aug 2006 12:13 (CEST)

Wae®th^tm©2006 wrote "Sadomasochistisch". I presume sadomasochist is the latest about EffK. It's good, it's new, it's a variation on en.wp 'schizophrenic', and nl.wp 'nutcase'. Effk has little choice but to appear so, however, it is ad hominem and anti-WP. EffK 13 aug 2006 15:19 (CEST)

Waerth didn't mean you, but us. It's fine if you cannot read Dutch, but then please don't get all paranoid over nothing. Sander Spek (overleg) 13 aug 2006 15:49 (CEST)

Thanks- I'm paranoid because of Limowreck, and because my contribution to Hitler:Overleg is banned right now. But I'm relieved about sadom*. However I'm still described as a nutcase-conspiracy theorist so, make me un-paranoid by upholding WP law.

Hoi Effk

Hey, Effk, zou je misschien kunnen toelichten wat je denkt bij te dragen aan deze wiki? Momenteel heb je, voor zover ik kan zien, alleen wat discussie gevoerd over Hitler, in het engels!, en flink geroepen over jezelf, verder niets. Zie jij jezelf nog bewerkingen gaan doen in de toekomst? Anders kun je dta misschien beter aangeven, het heeft immers weinig zin om zoveel discussies te voeren over een gebruiker die we vervolgens toch niet meer terugzien. effe iets anders 14 aug 2006 12:53 (CEST)

Waarschuwing Warning in English

Beste gebruiker, hierbij krijgt u een waarschuwing. Nadere uitleg kunt u onderaan deze waarschuwing vinden. Wanneer blijkt dat u na deze waarschuwing toch doorgaat met de geconstateerde ongewenste bewerkingen, dan wordt uw account geblokkeerd. Als u dit account enkel gebruikt voor vandalisme, dan zal de blokkade snel en voor onbepaalde tijd zijn. In minder ernstige gevallen kan een blokkade voor korte tijd volgen. Gaat u hierna weer door met de ongewenste bewerkingen, dan volgt, mogelijk zonder nieuwe waarschuwing, een lange blokkade. Als u constructief bij wil gaan dragen aan de encyclopedie, lees dan onze welkomstpagina. Bijdragen (en/de/fr/alle projecten) / overzicht verwijderde bijdragen CentralAuth Blokkeerlogboek Blokkadelijst Blokkadeverzoek Blokkeer gebruiker Filterlogboek

1. blijven doorgaan met het toevoegen van (niet-inhoudelijke) bijdragen in een taal die men op wiki-nl niet dient te gebruiken
2. 16 aug 2006 - omdat gebruiker niets bijdraagt en zich slechts als troll gedraagd, voor 1 jaar geblokkeerd

Conclusion

I was an animal in a Dutch Zoo.

• 15 aug 2006 02:08 (gesch) (wijz) Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina voor moderatoren/RegBlok (→Gebruiker:EffK - I now feel like an animal in your Zoo) (laatste wijziging)

Some of the animal keepers appear to be cruel, as they enjoy it. PoorJimbo- I can escape, but poor you, you can't. EffK

Uw gebruikersnaam wordt gewijzigd

Hallo,

Het ontwikkelteam van Wikimedia brengt een aantal wijzigingen aan in de manier waarop gebruikersnamen werken. Dit is een onderdeel van onze voortdurende inspanningen om nieuwe en betere hulpmiddelen beschikbaar te stellen aan onze gebruikers (zoals meldingen tussen wiki's). De wijzigingen houden in dat gebruikers overal dezelfde gebruikersnaam hebben. Dit geeft nieuwe mogelijkheden die u helpen bij het bewerken en overleggen, en maakt meer flexibele rechten voor nieuwe functies mogelijk. Een van de voorwaarden hiervoor is dat gebruikersnamen uniek zijn op alle 900 wiki's van Wikimedia.

Uw gebruikersnaam EffK wordt helaas ook gebruikt door een andere Wikimediagebruiker op een ander gedeelte van Wikimedia. Om er zeker van te zijn dat u beiden gebruik kunt blijven maken van alle wiki's van Wikimedia, wordt uw gebruikersnaam gewijzigd naar EffK~nlwiki. Deze wijziging gaat in april 2015 gebeuren, tegelijk met soortgelijke wijzigingen bij andere gebruikers.

Uw gebruikersaccount blijft werken zoals voorheen en alle bewerkingen die u tot op heden hebt gemaakt, blijven de uwe. U dient zich echter uw nieuwe gebruikersnaam te gebruiken bij het aanmelden. Als u zich niet kunt vinden in uw nieuwe gebruikersnaam, dan kunt een verzoek tot hernoemen indienen via dit formulier.

Excuses voor het ongemak.

Met vriendelijke groet,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

18 mrt 2015 05:07 (CET)

Gebruikersnaam gewijzigd

Gebruikers hebben voortaan slechts één gebruikersnaam en wachtwoord nodig om in te kunnen loggen op alle Wikimedia-projecten. Bij de invoering van deze mogelijkheid bleek het noodzakelijk dat dit account werd hernoemd. Bent u de eigenaar van dit account, dan kunt u inloggen met uw oude gebruikersnaam en wachtwoord om meer informatie te verkrijgen. Stelt u de nieuwe naam van uw account niet op prijs, dan kunt u, nadat u ingelogd bent, een andere naam kiezen met dit formulier: Speciaal:GlobaalHernoemingsverzoek. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

21 apr 2015 23:03 (CEST)