User talk:JBergsma1

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of terrorist incidents in 2004, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theo van Gogh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPP discussion

I have addressed our recent terrorism conversation at WP:VPP if you're interested on contributing. Parsley Man (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that you're putting the conversation to the WP:VPP. JBergsma1 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Parsley Man (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New Jersey Explosion

In regards to your response on Talk:List of terrorist incidents in September 2016, I highly recommend keeping an open mind about these kinds of incidents, especially if they're breaking-news stories and are still developing. Not everything is going to be clear-cut, probably not ever in some cases, and perhaps the only people who know what these attacks truly are would be the ones who actually perpetrate them. Parsley Man (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. My apologies for these edits. I agree that waiting for more details and a police confirmation would be better afterall. I was too quick to condemn the incident as terrorism.JBergsma1 (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, 2016 Minnesota knife attack

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2016 Minnesota knife attack. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 14:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this article be merged into 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing - I have already merged the infobox into the previously existing page; this is a common problem, it can be difficult to determine whether an article on a notable braking news incident has already been created. @Clubjustin and JBergsma1: , and do note that BOTH articles have now been tagged for speedy deltion, surly not appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At first I could not find the other article so I didn't think it would exist. That's how I started with one myself. But indeed, I notice the problem. I do agree with the speedy delition. My appologies for the error I made by making a second article on the same event. JBergsma1 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary, in fact, thank you for taking the initiative to start a useful article. I've done the same thing myself. When this does happen, the simple fix is to notify everyone and then do an uncontested merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR violations

Clearly you're not getting the point of all these reversions I've been making. If WP:RS doesn't mention certain incidents as terrorist attacks (or at the very least says investigations into such are still ongoing), then to classify them as such anyway (even in just list articles) is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. In particular, the talk pages of 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers and 2016 Nice attack have threads that verified that issue. Check those pages (or the talk archives) if you're not convinced.

If you still want them and others to be classified as such because you have reason to believe they should, post WP:RFCs on the main articles' talk pages and wait for people to make a vote on it, because there's definitely people who would disagree with your stance and you should settle the matter once and for all. Or better yet, try and continue that WP:VPP discussion; it's still up and I'm going to try and ask for a resolution ASAP. Or do both. But do not follow your own intuition and that of certain others, and continue reverting my reversions because you think they do fulfill the terrorism criteria.

I'm going to leave this issue alone for now, because I just got out of a block for edit-warring, but I HIGHLY urge you to do what I just suggested, because I know I'm not the only one who would disagree with those inclusions. Parsley Man (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second this. You have been adding entire to the "lists of terrorists attacks" where the sources provided don't support their addition. Example. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a discussion for so long and many people don't agree with you. I just put the suspected incidents back like there are many other suspected incidents but probably don't get your attention. If everyone would think like you the list would barely exist. Prehaps only some major attacks but 90 % of the attacks are suspected terror attacks on the list. So that means you should delete all of these, which is absolutely ridiculous. And just like with new articles on Wikipedia, you can discuss about it to remove it from wikipedia if it doesn't fit, not by deleting it yourselve, which is by the way impossible. So just like with unfitting articles you could ask an administrator about suspected incidents that seem unfitting and ask if they can get removed. Not by just deleting it yourselve. When it comes to cases where the incidents are obviously not terrorism it's a different story. But with incidents that are suspected and not confirmed, why not just ask a administrator to take a look at it? JBergsma1 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can ask any administrator you want (I'll ping Drmies and Doug Weller for some opinions). The list is of terrorist attacks and suspected attacks do not fall under that scope. Moreover, you've added ones you deemed terrorist attacks but that were not called such by any sources. You cannot do that. This seems like the entire series of lists might need review... EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I'm afraid that if a lot of unconfirmed incidents are removed the list will be very limited and less useful. But I think letting an administrator to check the list is still the best thing to do. Meanwhile people can still edit the list and if certain incidents seem unfit than an administrator can make a decision on keeping the incident. But it's a hard task as the limit to decide whether some incidents are terrorism or not is quite difficult to recognise. And many of the incidents are, like I said, unconfirmed. Most incidents occured in the Middle-East and most of these are limited in media reporting. But yes, involving an administrator seems to me the best thing to do to prevent edit-warring. JBergsma1 (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a mess. Our Manual of style says "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." That of course doesn't mention events. But I've looked at [[List of terrorist incidents, 2016] which says it includes suspected terrorist activities, and at the talk page discussion, particularly Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2016#Rife with Original Research where User:NewsAndEventsGuy shares a similar concern. What I can say for sure is that we do need to make it clear which are suspected and which are confirmed, and we need to ensure that the confirmation isn't just a newspaper headline, etc. Maybe NORN is the place for this. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, maybe it would be better to alter the list so that only the confirmed incidents are allowed. So that there are two pages, one for the incidents that are confirmed and one for the incidents that are suspected and put on for selection. This might solve the complications. I don't know, it's just an idea. But is it possible for you and other administrators to check the list and to judge whether some incidents seem fitting or not? I don't know whether this is a task for an administrator or not, but it might solve the continious edit-warring that has been going on. JBergsma1 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support having a list of "suspected" attacks, and Doug Weller's point about a newspaper headline is well taken. No, that's not OK. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. But what I ment was not a distinctive page similar to the existing terrorist incidenents list but a page only for selection. Pretty mutch like what happens on a talk page but then only with the 'suspected incidents' and not the discussions.But like I said, just an idea. JBergsma1 (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug, I'd like to quote you with inserted red text by me "we do need to make it clear which are suspected and BY WHOM and which are confirmed and BY WHOM". Unless its super resounding we should not be using WP:Wikivoice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the situation was handled while I was away, but it seems you are at it again. The source for the edit provided doesn't explicitly call the shootout a terrorist attack in itself, nor does it provide a clear and exact view of the suspect's own beliefs. It only says he is a part of a far-right, possibly neo-Nazi movement (not said to be a terrorist organization just yet, just an extremist group) that views the German state as illegitimate. We don't know if that encompasses an anti-police ideology. Parsley Man (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the media doesn't mention the word terrorism it doesn't mean it wasn't a terrorist incident. The perpetrator was a member of a neo-nazi cult. Furthermore neo-nazi violence can be described as terrorism. Besides many other terrorist incidents don't have the word terrorists in it. Other uses of words to describe a terrorist incident can be by calling the perpetrator a 'separatist', 'militant', 'rebel' etc. In this case the perpetrator was described as a 'reichsburger'. The 'reichsburger community' has been in the news multiple times for plotting terrorist attacks on refugees. If you don't agree with the incident being on the list than mention it in the talk page instead of deleting it all the time. Otherwise it would end up again in an edit-war. JBergsma1 (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does constitute "neo-Nazi violence", though? Definitely attacks against Jews and anyone who doesn't fit the so-called "master race" image, but a shootout against police officers? Unless at least a majority of the police officers the guy shot were Jewish, black, gay, or anything else he didn't like and he knew it, then I really doubt this was all that premeditated. From what I've read, the police somehow learned about the perpetrator and what he was doing, they raided his home, he didn't see it coming and didn't want to get arrested, and he fought back with the weapons he had. We can't simply attribute terrorism to any sort of action that he commits simply because he "was a member of a neo-nazi cult".

EvergreenFir, Drmies, Doug Weller, NewsAndEventsGuy, what do you all think about this?

Also, on an unrelated note, JBergsma1, I highly urge you to indent your messages whenever you're responding to another user on talk pages. It's kind of hard to follow this entire discussion alone through the formatting.

Parsley Man (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nazi's have attacked police officers before as a target. See Murder of Michéle Kiesewetter. She may have been a police officer of Iranian background, but her college sure wasn't (who was critically injured). And if you look at the January 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium you can see similarities with this Neo-Nazi raid. In both cases, an attack was planned. The suspect in the neo-nazi raid was involved with an organisation who planned attacks on refugees. Also, in both cases the suspects resisted arrest and they both had different targets. JBergsma1 (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if you notice, you'll see that so-and-so at attack this-and-that had a 3-ton iron swastika eyebrow stud and they had a third black goosestep boot covering their privates. But without an RS that says they were Nazi, wikipedia editors can't either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't list stuff on talk pages as a surrogate for listing it on the main page. And once again, we don't decide what is terrorist. As User:MASEM said elsewhere, ", it needs to be a source that has declaration that the act is terrorism by a government authority that has the ability to recognize that aspect. The press is not an authority for this, nor are random politicians. Agencies like the FBI, the police, etc. are the only groups that generally have this ability." Doug Weller talk 12:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but since there are so many attacks every day there is a lack of investigation into most attacks as most attacks don't occur in the West. If only the attacks are included that have a confirmation by the FBI or other Angecies the list would be very short and less informative. JBergsma1 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So? I don't see a problem with a shorter list. If anything, it makes things easier to follow. Parsley Man (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, is that there are many terrorist attacks around the world every day but only a few get confirmed by an agency. So if you put only the confirmed incidents on the list it means that all the other attacks, that are in fact terrorist attacks but not confirmed by a major agency like the FBI, are not included. The smaller attacks in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, India etc. are many times not confirmed, yet they are in many cases terrorist attacks.JBergsma1 (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are wartime events, not terrorist attacks. And you clearly need to review WP:RS and WP:NOR. Parsley Man (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell that the November 2015 Paris attacks were also wartime events, as France is in war with ISIL. In Pakistan, there are roadside bombings daily and most of them get no confirmation. And in many cases civilians are targeted. JBergsma1 (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review WP:RS. Parsley Man (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is in many ways still debatable. JBergsma1 (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? Parsley Man (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that you can still disagree about what sources are reliable and what sources not. JBergsma1 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the source you used for that example is certainly reliable. And guess what? No mention of terrorism anywhere in the article. Same with the November 2015 Paris attacks. Also, on an unrelated note, I sent you the edit-warring notice because you have consistently reverted the same edits over and over, and it's more or less just a heads-up that you are getting close to violating WP:3RR. The fact that my own reversions are being supported by a few other, more experienced editors makes the significance of posting such a notice even greater. Also, on another unrelated note, please, please, please indent your messages. Parsley Man (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted twice. And if you look at what the list is about it explains that also acts of political violence are involved. This surely was an act of political violence as the perpetrator was a right-wing extremist and planning an attack (which makes him a terrorist) but was detected by police and fought against the police officers. If he was an islamic fundamentalist and fought against police officers he surely would be called a terrorist. The source explicitly calls him a right-wing extremist who shot at police (similar to calling him a terrorist but the media didn't do that to distinct him from islamic terrorism). What do you mean by 'indent' my messages? JBergsma1 (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. I once got a notice for reverting twice, so surely you should get the same.

Shooting police officers in order to preserve oneself is NOT an act of political violence. Committing an actual attack against the German state in accordance with your ideology is an act of political violence. You are jumping to conclusions based on the fact that the shooter was clearly a right-wing extremist.

And no, the same would apply if the shooter was an Islamic fundamentalist. Don't try to be politically correct here.

When I say indent your messages, do what I am doing whenever I respond to you. Parsley Man (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Well, I guess we'll never reach concensus if we keep om going like this. I'll try to pay more attention to the WP:RS next time. But I hope you understand that arguments differ on whether a source is reliable. Like Doug Weller said, the list is a mess because of all the incidents with 'unreliable sources'. But do you mean by 'indent my messages' to make my messages shorter? JBergsma1 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, put a colon before typing down your message. Look up "indent" if you're still confused. Parsley Man (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your work on 2016 Jerusalem shooting attack. I was remiss in starting the article, and not expanding it properly. I have just added some material. Certainly it will be useful to add more details about the attack itself, and to add content about responses to it and articles about it that set it in political-impact context. The article is not at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Jerusalem shooting attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's good. Thanks for adding more information. I found it strange that it was put on for deletion as there are a lot of articles on palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel that have the same scale as the most recent shooting attack. JBergsma1 (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA3

Hello, the Arbitration Committee has restricted editors with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure from editing in the Arab-Israeli topic area. Please refrain from doing so until you meet the requirements. Thank you. nableezy - 14:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, and, Welcome

I failed to see that you are banned from this area because you are new to the project. I don't think that they had such a rule when I began editing, but I edit on a number of topics, and might not have been aware. I do hope that you will will find some other topic that interests you while you are learning the ropes - so many topics need more editors, some are in even greater need than the Israeli/Arab conflict does, although the Lord knows how desperately Wikipedia needs more editors on this topic. Again, my apologies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Your recent editing history at List of terrorist incidents in October 2016 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Parsley Man (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post unrelated stuff on talk pages

The discussion must mostly stay within the topic posed by the section header. Parsley Man (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Des Moines shooting

I just removed it from that list. I am assuming it is being put into that list because of reports that the suspect was waving a Confederate flag. But we don't even know a motive for the shootings just yet, so I agree that we should keep it out until details are shed and then we have an official confirmation. Parsley Man (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Even in the media they are saying that the shooting was done out of a 'rage' because of the incident with the flag.JBergsma1 (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True. Parsley Man (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JBergsma1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm incident

Why did you remove the Stockholm incident? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.157.48 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source supporting the incident doesn't give a clear indication that the attack was terrorism. Its methode also is rather an act of political vandalism than terrorism. Like spray painting a building is an act of political violence. Only incidents that the source calls terrorism should be added. Oh, and when you would like to ask a question, please do as the other users are doing when asking questions on a talkpage.JBergsma1 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J., do you want to take a second look at that Linz incident? page as you saw it seems to have misrepresented the facts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory When I recommended a speedy deletion it was indeed because the article didn't seem to be correctly written. The article stated for example that ISIL was responsible, which seems unlikely. The sources mention the suspect as an 'ISIL sympathiser' and not a member of the group itself. The article has indeed improved so it seems to me in an encyclopedic form. I will add a positive recommendation.JBergsma1 (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useful page to watchlist

Seeing as you are interested in the subject, it may be worth watchlisting this page so you can easily access new AfD conversations. Hope this was useful to you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I was indeed looking for this.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion/s would be welcome here

[1] Reaper7 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JBergsma1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JBergsma1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2016 Brussels National Institute of Criminology fire for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 Brussels National Institute of Criminology fire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Brussels National Institute of Criminology fire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—Brigade Piron (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Arson in Belgium

A tag has been placed on Category:Arson in Belgium requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]