User talk:1652186

Welcome!

Hello 1652186, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 08:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative action in Belgium

Could you please provide a citation for this claim? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: [1]. I've added it to the article as well. I didn't find anything in English, but putting it through a web-based translator should be sufficient to check the content. 1652186 17:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the citation. For what it's worth, I can read Dutch/Flemish a little, mainly because it is not a million miles from German. It seems to bear out the basics, but I still have significant issues with the text in our article.

I see nothing in the citation that bears out the claim that 4/5 of the population are against such actions. Am I missing something?

I see that ouderen in the cited text has been rendered as "immigrants" in our article. Who exactly does that include, in the law? In particular, would a Dutch person from the Netherlands qualify? (It is very unclear in the cited article). What about a Walloon living in a Flemish-speaking part of Belgium?

Also, in our article you wrote "to a lesser extent disabled and elderly people". I don't see anything in the cited source that bears out "to a lesser extent". The accusation of them being merely schaamlapje (I gather that means something to bring shame upon those who would oppose the legislation, that they are being used for political cover) is simply Vlaamse Belang accusation. It could be cited as such, but there is no indication in the article of any reason to view this as anything more than political rhetoric from an opposition party. - Jmabel | Talk 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 4/5 is indeed not quoted in the article, but can be found at the respected polling site www.stemmenkampioen.be. 'Ouderen' means elderly, immigrants in the link are quoted as 'allochtonen'. I don't know either who legally qualifies as such, as I am no legal specialist. With the "to a lesser extent" I mean that it is statistically clear that of those three groups the immigrants have the highest unemployment rate. However, your explanation is also true. Feel free to include this if you like. 1652186 11:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Denmark was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team[reply]

Personal attack

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

--LucVerhelst 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are referring to Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. As I've said on your talk page, I do not accuse you of being an editor for questionable reasons, nor of having a secret agenda. I only think that the community has the right to know about your professional background, as this is relevant to many of your contributions. And as I've said in your article's AfD, I retract my comment of you wanting to keep your political background undisclosed, and apologize for having suggested so. In my eyes however, I haven't carried out a personal attack. 1652186 19:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Luc, I really don't know what you are up to. The last week, I started to believe that you were reasonable, but [...]

[...] and lying about a reference [...]

[...]If the concerned person was still alive, he could probably even sue you in real life for this.[...]

[...]Do something like this one more time, and I will no longer write these things here, but on the talkpage of an admin."

Talk:Frieda Van Themsche

"I'm starting to doubt whether we should treat Luc as a serious discussion partner. Apart from the above, see the talk page of Frieda Van Themsche for the reason."

Talk:Vlaams Belang --LucVerhelst 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Luc, I really don't know what you are up to. The last week, I started to believe that you were reasonable, but [...]

[...] and lying about a reference [...]

Yes?

[...]If the concerned person was still alive, he could probably even sue you in real life for this.[...]

You're not saying that I am threatening you with legal action here, are you?

[...]Do something like this one more time, and I will no longer write these things here, but on the talkpage of an admin.

I don't think it's against policy to report things like that.

I'm starting to doubt whether we should treat Luc as a serious discussion partner. Apart from the above, see the talk page of Frieda Van Themsche for the reason.

Same as above, plus you countered me with the same. I'll also not mention the various 'racist' comments I received.

However, I've had enough of all this. If people start accusing me of personal attacks, that's a personal attack against me, and really, that is not what I'm here for. Let me ask you one final thing, though. If someday soon, a Vlaams Belang member gets killed by the nephew of a Groen! parlementarian, would you feel guilty, after all the hatred against them you have spread? Just think about that when the time comes... Maybe your good friend Paul Belien is not so wrong after all... 1652186 20:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Belien, my good friend ? I don't think so. --LucVerhelst 21:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic, of course. 1652186 06:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do mention any 'racist' comments I made. --LucVerhelst 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you made any personally, but some people with whom you seemed to get along well did. But that remark wasn't meant against you in particular. 1652186 06:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that's cleared up. Altough we should be aware that you were defending yourself against my claim of you, personally attacking me. In that context, the remark "I'll also not mention the various 'racist' comments I received." will be interpreted by a reader as an accusation. Which, as we established, is false.

In my book, being falsely accused of going against the rules is considered a personal attack. --LucVerhelst 08:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional backgrounds?

You wrote "Since I am of the opinion that third parties in our political discussions should be aware of professional backgrounds" ... do you have a political professional background we should be aware of? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't. I'm a student in a field totally unrelated to politics. 1652186 06:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch language references

Hi 1652186,
Could you please stop providing Dutch language references only and try to find references in English. This would make them much more accessible to non-Dutch speakers, which constitute the largest part of en.wikipedia users. Feel free to add Dutch references to nl.wikipedia.org but try to make the effort of looking for similar reference in English for the English language Wikipedia. It would be greatly appreciated. --moyogo 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you check my edits, you will see that I try to include English language references whenever possible. However, this is quite difficult for subjects that aren't world news. I do not think that there is any objection againt including foreign language references to check a specific fact, if necessary a user can easily translate it online to verify. 1652186 18:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Demoor

Hello 1652186,

I saw you changed my latest version back to the previous situation (that the letter was read by a 14 year old). This is certainly not correct. The letter, which is written as a poem, was first published in a newspaper (Gazet van Antwerpen), I guess anonymously, and falsely linked to the girl. Actually it was sent by a male witness around thirty years old. The 14-year old, who was another witness, has therefore nothing to do with the letter.

If you agree, I change the page back to my latest version...

If you have a reference that shows that there was a poem read, feel free to include this. However, my content does not refer to a poem, but to a self-made text that was actually written by a 14-year old witness. This was mentioned in all Flemish media. 1652186 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war?

Hi, I don't think the AEL-article is in an edit war. At least not since May 22 (or longer). Nor is it POVed now. ActiveSelective 18:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is (though in the beginning phase), and you participated in it. As far as the POV is concerned, see its talk. 1652186 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your reaction on the AEL-talk page. Thanks for clarifying. ActiveSelective 19:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you were right. A small edit war there. I didn't see it coming. Some personal stuff is being mixed up with the article, I think. Too bad. ActiveSelective 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack revisited

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

See Talk:Hans Van Themsche :

"Luc, you should know by now that you cannot go around removing entire paragraphs that have been discussed for months with a one sentence rationale that actually isn't one. This is considered vandalism. I do find it weird that you do not attend to certain articles for weeks, then suddenly show up when I do, and remove something written by me, but not my latest edit. Is this getting personal? 1652186 19:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

--LucVerhelst 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are lucky that falsely accusing people of personal attacks is not considered a personal attack. I'm not going to reply here again, so refer to the crime scene for that. 1652186 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Claiming that someone is falsely accusing someone, isn't that a personal attack ? --LucVerhelst 19:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have just proven that you have accused me twice of a personal attack without reading the policy. From Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack. 1652186 20:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accused you twice of personally attacking me, letting go at least one other occasion, if I recall correctly.
Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack : exactly. I'm just wondering whether you, saying that I falsely accuse you, isn't another personal attack. Anyway, nobody is perfect. --LucVerhelst 20:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote : "Luc started the edit war without rationale"[2]. I did not start an edit war, nor did I participate. I consider your remark to be a personal attack. --LucVerhelst 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to point out to you that a remark about your actions or writings cannot be a personal attack, by definition. If you continue accusing me of personal attacks without clearly showing that my comments qualify as such, I will feel compelled to initiate Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. 1652186 16:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't make a remark on "your actions or writings", you falsely accused me of starting an edit war. --LucVerhelst 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If starting an edit war is not an action, then what is it? 1652186 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down

The page apparently at the center of this dispute has now been protected, gentlemen. I have responded to the MfD request by 1652186, and see a need for some discussion here. Please explain, civilly, what this dispute involves.

1652186, I will delete your userpage if you wish, but this will not "close" your Wikipedia account; only an indefinite block might do that. If you are leaving on account of perceived mistreatment, however, I urge you to remain and discuss the matter. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not request an account closure (I'm aware that this is impossible) or a block, just that my UserPage be removed. The reason is that I wish to leave Wikipedia. I do not claim having been mistreated in the past however, I just realised that things can get out of hand sooner than one expects and wish to avoid this in the future. 1652186 09:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep opposing the removal of your user page. I was going to ask a block on you, for another personal attack on your user page ("Three seperate dubious accusations of a personal attack and one of slander (the direct reason for my departure) by LucVerhelst."), but since you removed it, there is no immediate reason to ask the block anymore.

I want the history on your userpage (and it's talk page) kept, in case you might decide to resurface (as 1652186 or using a sockpuppet) and attack me again, in which case I need to be able to prove the need for a block on you. --LucVerhelst 13:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will leave it up to the admins as to whether or not my UserPage warrants to be kept. I still do not consider the above remark to be a personal attack, and therefore see no reason in keeping it. I have however never asked to remove my talk page, since I am aware that the warnings you posted here (even though I contest them) need to be preserved. To any admin: if you see no harm in it, please remove my UserPage. 1652186 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to your request, I have deleted your userpage. There has been incivility on each side of this dispute, so I would advise Mr. Verhelst to look after himself before admonishing others. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and goodbye! 1652186 16:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leaving

I guess you had good reasons for leaving, huh? Well at least fight a good fight beyond Wikipedia, will yah! Intangible 23:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Belgian urban violence

Hi, I've nominated 2005 Belgian urban violence for deletion : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Belgian urban violence (second nomination). I thought you might be interested. --LucVerhelst 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aitoud.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Aitoud.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This is not notable

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Moez ^talk 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Van Holsbeeck murderers.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Van Holsbeeck murderers.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alexandra Colen

The article Alexandra Colen has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Natureium (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing terrorism

Hi, I've listed Left-Wing terrorism in Articles for Deletion. You were involved previously when it was discussed and you may be interested. AlanS^talk 09:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]