User talk:Taksen

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

ANI report

A report was filed on Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents concerning you. Best regards, Encyclopédisme (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Why is it dated 4 April? Taksen (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I’m sorry, It’s my second time going to ANI, I copied the message I sent on 4 April… PS: There, it’s fixed now. Encyclopédisme (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the ANI thread, it is now proposed that you be banned from editing mainspace. If you have an opinion on that, you can respond. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been banned after User:Encyclopédisme complained. I did not trust this guy but the board did. Just a few days ago it became clear to me he has been recognized as a sock puppet. One could see from his history something wasn't right about him. Nobody noticed at that time he was unreliable, except User:EEng. He made a remark! Secondly, not very many people check talk pages, or add what I suggested. See Peter the Great, Robespierre and the Battle of Krasnoi. I am fine with being stopped adding to Wikipedia as it is addictive but it should stop one day.

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

Taksen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been banned after Encyclopédisme complained. I did not trust this guy but the board did. Just a few days ago it became clear to me he has been recognized as a sock puppet. One could see from his history something wasn't right about him. Nobody noticed at that time he was unreliable. Secondly, not very many people check talkpages, or add what I suggested. See Peter the Great and Robespierre. I am fine with being stopped adding to Wikipedia as it is addictive but it should stop one day.Taksen (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked via WP:ANI. I therefore believe no admin is free to unilaterally lift your block. You are free to contact the blocking admin via their talk page to discuss, but I believe fundamentally, you'd need to contest this via the community. See WP:UNBAN. Yamla (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have never heard of you. You were not involved.Taksen (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. You requested an uninvolved admin to review your block. I'm confused as to what you are trying to say. Do you think it was inappropriate of me to review your unblock request after you requested this? Do you think my decline was inappropriate? Let me know and I'll be happy to guide you to the best way to accomplish your goal. --Yamla (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, it looks like the block was actually for failing to communicate in a reasonable way about the complaints, a block placed before any consensus had developed in the discussion, which I didn't intend as a community-placed block. Taksen, you actually were lucky there, as from the various complaints you almost certainly would have ended up with a community block, likely at least a block from article space and quite possibly a full indef. It doesn't really matter that the original complaint was from a sock, there were complaints from multiple other editors.

The complaints you failed to address in that discussion were ownership, uncivil edit summaries, WP:IDHT, and competence. As a bare minimum, I personally would need to see a lot of productive discussion in article talk to convince me, but you haven't made 50 edits in the time since the block.

Re:your complaint that no one is addressing the talk page discussions you have opened, the last one at Peter the Great, here, doesn't even make sense. I literally have no idea what you were asking someone to do. It might help if you used edit requests -- which do attract attention, as they appear on a noticeboard -- and made sure your requests were understandable. Valereee (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under Remarks, you can see my proposals, you had no idea what I was asking?? Nobody takes notice what I wrote early September. Secondly, it is funny to see that I who accused User:Encyclopédisme of being especially active on talk pages are forced to present my self on talk pages. He even complained about the fact that I copied text to other articles including references something I practise for years. I find it strange wikipedians can remove sourced material. Their actions seem questionable at best P.S. I used ChatGPT as I am not a native speaker.Taksen (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my reply, as I discovered this morning I did add Remarks on 7,8 and 9 September. Taksen (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zwanenburg

I'd asked this on the Lastage article, but I was able to find the answer to the question through the sources provided.

https://www.theobakker.net/pdf/vlooienburg.pdf

According to Mr. Bakker's articles, it's pretty clear this island west of Vlooienburg was called "Zwanenburg," which is kind of what I'd guessed. And what else is made clear is that at least part of this land was already in existence; it was simply expanded deeper into the Amstel along with The Vlooienburg. So this should help with both the Dutch and English language articles which deal with this area of the old city. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the indexes there is no place called "Zwanenburg" inside Amsterdam. Good luck.Taksen (talk) 19: 21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi! You've asked for this page to be deleted. Is that deletion tag intended to apply to your sandbox User:Taksen/sandbox200? And do other similar tags on sandbox talk pages also apply to the corresponding sandboxes? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this morning I emptied pages no longer useful to me. I created them my self. You can delete all the pages with this tag. I have not finished it, but there will be a few more with this tag. Thanks. Taksen (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. For others, please just add {{db-u1}} to the page itself, not the talk-page. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know, I will, thanksTaksen (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]