User talk:LucVerhelst/Archive01

It's about time someone gave you the official welcome!

Welcome!

Hello LucVerhelst/Archive01, 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! -- Francs 2000 09:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VWN en WCN

Beste LucVerhelst Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 16:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALLIANCES

Dag Luc

Ik zie dat ge een en ander verwijderd hebt uit "Alliances" waarbij ge volgens mij wat te ruim geweest bent. Corporate funding of political parties was made illegal before dit is aantoonbaar

thus making the only possible means of political work outside the existing parties by personal funding

dit is dan ook de enige overblijvende weg. Ook academici stellen zich hier vragen over en suggereren een klacht bij de raad van Europa die toeziet op de democratische spelregels. Momenteel zijn de documenten niet beschikbaar via internet maar ik vermoed dat dat tijdelijk is of door verplaatsing. Het knippen van de link kan ik mee instemmen. Hebt ge een ander voorstel? Ik zoek ondertussen de teksten van de academici.

bv: van prof De Wachter: quote: Liberalen en socialisten schaffen vrijheid van politieke vereniging af 'Het is niet netjes dat het parlement zijn eigen termijn verlengt', zei onlangs Reuven Rivlin, de voorzitter van de Israëlische Knesset. Naar analogie daarvan kan men zeggen: 'Het is niet netjes dat regeringspartijen door wetswijzigingen hun potentiële tegenstanders selecteren.' Dat is nochtans wat in België gebeurt, stelt WILFRIED DEWACHTER vast. Door de invoering van een kiesdrempel van 5 procent, in combinatie met bestaande regels over de partijfinanciering, sabelen liberalen en socialisten doelbewust in het partijenaanbod. end quote.

Beste groeten

Paul 3 mei 2006

Ik heb geantwoord op jouw talk-page, Paul. Doen we verder op discussie-pagina van het artikel zelf ? (In het Engels, dan kunnen de anderen mee denken.) --LucVerhelst 15:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Luc,

ik zal eens kijken of ik op de discussie-pagina van het artikel geraak, ik ben niet zo thuis in Wiki, en zoals ge zegt, mijn Engels kan ook beter ;-). Niet getreurd, er zijn altijd goede zielen die de fouten rechtzetten, daar laat ik het niet voor. Wat uw argument betreft " Je kan nu eenmaal een maatschappij beter besturen met een stabiel parlement." daar ben ik het helemaal niet mee eens. Dan is het verwonderlijk dat het parlement in Nederland werkt, daar is evenredige vertegenwoordiging. Ook in de UK, waar het Angelsaksisch kiessysteem geldt (the winner takes all) is er financiering van startende en kleine partijen. Het is het argument van elke dictatuur.

Ik ken al die kiessystemen niet in detail maar wat de financiering betreft ken ik de regeling in Frankrijk :

http://francepolitique.free.fr/FPartisfin.htm

loi du 11 avril 2003

financement public :

première fraction : proportionnelle au nombre de voix obtenues au premier tour des dernières élections législatives. Condition : présenter des candidats ayant obtenu chacun au moins 1% des suffrages exprimés dans au moins cinquante circonscriptions

seconde fraction : proportionnelle au nombre de parlementaires. Condition : être bénéficiaire de la première fraction

Hier in Belgie is het parlement zo "stabiel" dat de traditionele partijen bijna van de kaart moeten geveegd worden door proteststemmen aan extreem rechts voor zij beseffen dat zij "het volk" zouden moeten vertegenwoordigen, inplaats van met hun hoofd in de wolken te zitten filosoferen. Blok (Belang) stemmen is de enige mogelijkheid geworden in Belgie om de "macht"hebbers te raken. Dat is de keerzijde van de beschermende maatregelen (5% drempel, telsysteem D'Hondt, financieringssysteem, enz..) Ik ben dan ook een verdediger van de Directe Democratie naar Zwitsers model waar de burger er zeker kan van zijn dat hij zelf het laatste woord heeft en er een openbare discussie is voor er beslist wordt over belangrijke onderwerpen. In Zwitserland is overigens extreem rechts wel wat gegroeid als politieke fractie maar niets van betekenis. Wie daar stemt voor extreeml rechts stemt duidelijk voor dat gedachtengoed, wat ik in Belgie betwijfel.

Paul 12 mei 2006 11u56

Your edits to Hans Van Themsche=

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Waggers 15:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your 2006-05-23 13:23 (UTC) edits to Talk:Hans Van Themsche

(Who doesn't seem to have his own page ?) Je kan er eventueel naar verwijzen als Dyab Abu Jahjah, vermits de AEL-pagina de stichter beschrijft; de link naar zijn naam in die pagina blijkt inderdaad loos (let op de spelling aldaar: Abou versus jouw Abu; ik ken de officiële ook niet). SomeHuman 2006-05-23 15:17 (UTC)

Your very own article

Luc,

Since I am of the opinion that third parties in our political discussions should be aware of professional backgrounds, I have created your article, Luc Verhelst. I do believe that a district council party leader and safety board chairman deserves an article if every Flemish MP does.

Regards,

1652186 18:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you'd do that. We'll see what happens. 1652186 18:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I do not accuse you of being an editor for questionable reasons, nor of having a secret agenda (I thought that term was reserved for your opponents, but whatever). I only think that the community has the right to know about your professional background, as this is relevant to many of your contributions. I'm happy you seem to agree. 1652186 18:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

--Yurik 18:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of 2005 in Africa

Hello Luc,

Thanks for translating the article 2005 in Africa. The French article is very good and I am glad it is now translated into English.

Greetings RaF

Vlaams Belang

If anything before the foundation of Vlaams Belang goes, I will remove anything that happened before 2004 from the article. Intangible 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then giva a rational of why this should be removed on the talk page. Intangible 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Thanks for the warning. Have a nice day yourself! Intangible 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive debates

Upon an encounter with some acquaintance of yourself, it might interest you to know about my dropping your name in Hans Van Themsche's talk page. Yours truly, SomeHuman 2006-07-16 16:30 (UTC)

Personal attack accusations

Please stop falsely accusing me of personal attacks. From Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Thank you. 1652186 16:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a public talk page, you falsely accused me of starting an edit war. This is slander, therefore a personal attack.

Stop attacking me, and I'll stop complaining about it.--LucVerhelst 16:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an edit war is an action, and (even falsely, which I of course contest) accusing you of that is therefore not a personal attack. If you however bring up the word slander, I wonder whether you are not in violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. I will not continue on Wikipedia under this accusation, and the resulting threat of being sued for defamation. This was therefore my very last edit. Congratulations on scaring off a member of the community. 1652186 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block threat

It seems that I will have to unvoluntary postpone my departure from Wikipedia. When I asked to have my account removed, you intervened with Hang on ! I was going to request to block this user !. May I please know what I have done now to deserve such a drastic threat, and what evidence there is on my user page? 1652186 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now reinitiating the deletion procedure of my UserPage, since you have failed to provide a reason for opposing speedy deletion, as required by usage of the hangon tag. I am also still waiting for an answer to my above question. 1652186 18:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luc, are you still planning a block request against me, or can I now please leave Wikipedia in peace? 1652186 13:00, 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 13:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Don't worry, you will never have to face me again, as explained before. This remark is not directed against you, but I have conceded with the fact that freedom of expression no longer exists in Belgium. Goodbye. 1652186 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Belgian. --LucVerhelst 13:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intangible

Hello! You've noticed User:Cberlet has posted a message, first on the Front National (France) article, then [here, about recensing User:Intangible's tiring edits. I took the liberty to let you this message, demanding you to insert troublesome edits in the list, as I saw you seemed annoyed by his edits and that this is the only way for us all to realize just what is Intangible up to in Wikipedia. He himself seems ready to provide better, neutral edits of his ; very well, this will let us all judge on pieces. I believe that if Cberlet made this demand, it is that he himself as seen enough to start thinking about RfA. I know it's not much fun recording these edits & engaging in a "war" against one user and that we would all rather concentrate on productive tasks, but it seems like taking now the bother to do so will all greatly help us in relevant articles in endless reverting and watching pages... Regards, Tazmaniacs 18:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secular ethics

A topic I consider interesting though less well-known is shortly described in the article Secular ethics. It has been nominated recently for improvement to 'featured article' status, which might bring some readers (as its nomination brought myself) to the article: the title may not be an everyday search topic. In case you would like to support the article, if not help to improve it by editing, it urgently needs a couple of extra votes: Secular ethics - votes - stays until July 20.
By the way, my clearvoyance had not seen things happen this quickly, just mind It seems to have rattled some chains; if these might after a while appear to have become silent, the typical style would soon be recognized from under some unsuspected mask. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-19 02:26 (UTC)

Your note

Hi,

Mainly, Mr. Verhelst, my comment referred to your insistence that another user's userpage not be speedy deleted. This is generally a little impolite on Wikipedia -- a user's userpage is their perogative. Although no user "owns" his or her userpage, no other user has much say over whether it should be kept. There are limited exceptions to this; but, in reading your dialogue with 165..., it seemed you were badgering a bit too much. In fact, if I could give one piece of constructive advice, it would be for you to make whatever point you wish once, and then let it go. If someone wants to be impolite to you, don't bother trying to repeat yourself. Just take the moral high road, and politely tell them that your part in the discussion is finished. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Intangible. See [here]. Please post any comments you desire to add.--Cberlet 20:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

groen!

groen! is de zieligste partij van België

Thanks for your contribution.

It's an honor to be able to welcome you here, someone who believes (and thinks that it is important enough to enter it in Wikipedia) that Heinrich Himmler is one of the most handsome people in the third reich.--LucVerhelst 21:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Hess was also quite a stud!!

Green & political opinions

Hello! Just to let you know, I don't know why you feel obliged to make public your political allegeance. They are not of any more interest than your religious beliefs, philosophical opinions or sexual orientations, despite what a dominant discourse on Wikipedia might let believe. I am of the opinion that self-describing oneself and self-identifying oneself on such a media is not necessarily a good idea, as it inclines people to let go to their prejudices (luckily for you, my own prejudice against Greens is pretty much positive, but that might not be the case of everyone). You stated that you described yourself in order to stop people from accusing you of maintaining a "secret agenda": try now editing at Chernobyl catastrophe without being accused of following such an agenda! Of course, this is none of my business, but I am a bit fed up with what I see as dangerous forms of identity politics. Since I went on your talk page first of all because of Intangible, I must tell you, for ex, that I thought for some time — and would really much I've liked it — that albeit his far right views, Intangible could help us & we could work with him. Dividing ourselves with userboxes or such political mentions is not, IMO, the best way to cooperate in editing this work-in-progress. Anyway, Cheers! Tazmaniacs 14:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Tazmaniacs may have a good point, where it not that a user had not only accused Luc Verhelst of hiding his political connection, but even had created an article on Luc as (if) he is famous enough a politician. The latter article was removed for its improper grounds of creation. The culprit's user page was removed a few days ago on his own request. — Nuclear energy and nature fan SomeHuman 2006-07-23 16:19 (UTC)

What ! Nuclear energy fan ? On my talk page ? :-D

(Nuclear energy is going to be one of the important challenges for the Green movement in the near future, with Kyoto and all. It's going to be quite a dillema.)

--LucVerhelst 16:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(See also my reply on Tazmaniacs' talk page. --LucVerhelst 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe it's a long shot but ...

Maybe it's a long shot but I could not help but notice you live in Antwerp. I've recently started a "project" on the article on the Dutch language. It concerns the translation of a number of sentences in the most prominent Dutch dialects. I was hoping to include a number of city dialects as well ... would you happen to speak Antwerps, and be able to translate the following sentences in it?

" A language is a dialect that has an army and a navy "
" Een taal is een dialect met een leger en een vloot."

---

" would you happen to have ?"
" Heeft u alstublieft nog wat aardappels voor mij?"

---

" My name is John, what's yours?"
" Ik heet [Jan], hoe heet jij?"

Rex 15:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go. The problem however is that Antwerps differs from standard Dutch for the larger part because of the pronunciation. And since my "phonetics" is a bit rusty, I won't be able to give you the exact info you need.

(Pronunciation of the Antwerpian sentences below is according Dutch spelling.)

" A language is a dialect that has an army and a navy "
" Een taal is een dialect met een leger en een vloot."
" Een taol is 'n dialect mè een leger en een vloot."

---

" would you happen to have ?"
" Heeft u alstublieft nog wat aardappels voor mij?"
" Ed u misschien wa petatte veur maa ?"

---

" My name is John, what's yours?"
" Ik heet [Jan], hoe heet jij?"
" Ik zen de Jan, oe noemde gaa?" / "Maane naom is Jan, oe is dieje van aa?"

(Hier zal ongetwijfeld kritiek op komen... :-D)--LucVerhelst 17:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter, thanks for helping me. I'm glad that Antwerps does in fact looks so much like "regular" brabantic, after the things I heard about it... ;-) Rex 17:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, there is a huge difference between Antwerps and regular brabantic. Antwerps is a world language, where brabantic is just a bunch of dialects.

:-D

--LucVerhelst 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you dare to bet you get half a micron farther with your Aántwáárps then I with my Beurgermechels?

(part moved, see hereunder)

SomeHuman 2006-07-24 18:42 (UTC)

Anyway Luc, Rex put a 'wink' in my direction on Talk:Dutch language, for practical reasons, I just moved my sample Mechlinian from here above to Rex' talk page — SomeHuman 2006-07-24 19:53 (UTC)

You know, the problem with Brabantic is that the area in which is spoken large and quite highly populated. This makes that the diversity of the dialect is very large, far larger than any other Dutch dialects. Thing is though, that city dialects (especially those of older cities) are not the best representatation of the dialect group to which it belongs, but they are often (for me at least) quite interesting as they follow different paterns in terms of vocabulary. Rex 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Dewinter

Calling Dewinter a Flemish activist was based, in part, upon his youthful actions: "In 1978, as a 16-year old, he founded the Flemish Student Action Group (Vlaamse Studenten Actie Groep)." Activist is not the same as terrorist. You said "That's quite an assertion !" I am not sure what you mean. Activists can be liberal or conservative. But I am not sure that I have ever seen a middle-of-the-road activist. Bejnar 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Flemish activist" is quite an honorary title in Flanders. As such, it is very POV. Bestowing such a title to a controversial political figure as Filip Dewinter is seen as taking sides for the far right Vlaams Belang, and against the democratic part of the Flemish movement. Do you have sources ? --LucVerhelst 21:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used activist to describe political activity directed towards Flemish nationalism. If you choose to see activist as a POV word, I cannot help you. Some people, who are not necessarily Flemish, see all separatist movements as inhumane. For them, Flemist activist probably implies a negative connotation. Do you deny that Dewinter founded, or help found, the Vlaamse Studenten Actie Groep? Bejnar 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether he did. It is not relevant, I think. Do you have sources that call Dewinter a Flemish Activist, or is it just your opinion ? In the latter case, putting that cat there is original research.

Or are you going to put everybody in this category that has had "political activity directed towards Flemish nationalism" ? In that case, you should at least add someone like Wilfried Martens... --LucVerhelst 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot see that creation of a student group whose name could be translated into English as the Flemish Student Activist Group is a relevant act by Dewinter, then I cannot help you. As to Wilfried Martens he has not such record in his past that I was able to find. As to putting everybody into the category, the answer is no, unless they clearly belong there on an objective basis. Aside, the process of categorization based on verified record is not original research. List of original research Bejnar 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed this discussion on the Filip Dewinter discussion page. Maybe we can continue it there, if necessary. Bejnar 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Demoor

Hi,

Excellent revision, which takes takes into account the uncertainty surrounding the event. Since you have a waited a period for comment, I will implement the revision and unprotect the page. The article may briefly disappear as I do this. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Again, wonderful job. As a consequence of the history merge, your proposal page no longer exists: its history is part of the main article now, which is also unprotected and ready for normal editing. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right

It is a bit pointless. --AaronS 14:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egmont/d pact

File:Palais d egmonts.jpg

The Egmontpaleis or Palais d'Egmont, seat of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a site for European diplomacy

Thanks!! ;) I have also added a link from Egmond family. Now the "Egmont Palace" is missing... ! --Edcolins 13:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks to you as well! --Edcolins 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art magazine resorts

Hi, I agree, the text of the new stub type is a little misleading as to the intended scope, which is everything in Category:Art magazines (which is distinctly broad). I'll tweak the text to try and make that clearer. (A finer-grained stub type would certainly be preferable, if there's sufficient numbers for that.) Alai 19:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Hopefully the new wording is vague enough to cover... well, quite a lot, really! Alai 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I can use all the editing help I can get. --Cberlet 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storme

Luc, Can you revert the article to my last edit please? The unknown IP-address changed the entire lay-out, while there was a consensus about the previous format. I just wanted to do it, but you were already editing the article, so ... Berchemboy 08:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your note on my talk page

Actually, I don't think the anon user was committing vandalism, so there is really no reason to plainly revert. Even less, since he seems to have done some research on Storme.

I did reformat some of the links to the speeches. they were looking a bit too much like vanity links to me. --LucVerhelst 08:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no prob then. Although I still prefer the older format more for its clarity, especially on the "controversies"-issue. Now, you have to read the entire article in order to find all the issues. Berchemboy 09:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currency succession box

Do you plan to update more currency succession box? What was in Dutch gulden and French franc were succession boxes of the old format. New format is under construction at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Sandbox/Succession. But please understand that by no mean I am denying your contribution. --Chochopk 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlaams blok trial

Seems fine to me. But i'm not sure i will help since i have little knowledge about the topic. On top it'll be a hard work cause i bet many people will vandalize the page. Good luck,Julien Tuerlinckx 17:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your re-alphabetising of de l'Ecluse

My understanding is that French surnames are alphabetised not under de but under the following word. This is how it is in other Wikipedia examples that I can find (at "Category:Pre-Linnaean botanists" see two examples at the letter T) and also in other catalogues and encyclopedias that I know (it's always La Bruyère, not De la Bruyère). Are you going by a special Wikipedia rule that I haven't learned? Andrew Dalby 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luc, a style guide is mentioned underneath your answer on Andrew Dalby's talk page. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 3 Sep 2006 10:36 (UTC)

[copy] Thank you to you and SomeHuman for your interesting comments. It's a very complicated issue and I shall be happy to let others worry about it -- I'm certainly not going to revert what Luc has done -- but it remains a fact, in most Wikipedia category lists containing French names with de, that the name is alphabetised under the following word, not under the de. In other words, the de is not treated as part of the surname. There are a lot of examples. And the same holds good for nearly every other English reference source containing French names. This is why you find Balzac under B, not under D. I learned this as a library cataloguer, and it remains true.

However -- this is why I draw back from the abyss -- when French names are carried into other languages (e.g. because the family has migrated), the De is thereafter often treated as the beginning of the surname, by the people themselves and by reference sources. Well, of course, Carolus Clusius or Charles de l'Ecluse is not French but Flemish ...

Best wishes to both. Andrew Dalby 12:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

npa

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.

For your comment "I reverted User:Intangible's 17 September 06 tendentious edits" Intangible 15:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling your edits tendentious isn't a personal attack. It is a remark on the nature of your edits. Which were -to my opinion- tendentious. --LucVerhelst 15:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belection06

Hello,

Thanks for your message. Indeed, I have contributed to WP anonymously for some time, and a few of my edits have been in trying to NPOV Belgian politics articles. I've chosen to create a login this time, to keep an overview of my actions and to concentrate my contributions concerning the 2006 elections.

Regards,

Belection06 11:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to violate my neutrality, but since you were kind enough to drop me a welcome note, I'd like to take the liberty to express you my sympathies concerning the election results, which must be quite disturbing to you given your user page statement. I hope that the situation in Antwerp can bring some comfort. Belection06 21:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language

Een zekere Antman, die op zijn eigen gebruikerspagina open en bloot toegeeft een Duits nationalist te zijn (terwijl hij toch Amerikaans is) heeft nu al een paar keer en betwist stuk tekst in gevoegd (Nederlands zou tot een paar honderd jaar geleden maar een Duits dialectje zijn geweest). Ik wil je vragen om met het overleg mee te doen en als het kan het stuk tekst te verwijderen want ik zit al aan de 3 denk ik. Rex 15:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your removal of the text, but I have already explained why, and really, the fact that both of you speak fluent Dutch and seem to think that I cannot read ANY of it seems to imply that you are really ignorant of the fact that German and Duch are quite related, and I don't even have a full knowledge of German yet! Ameise -- chat 19:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I adressed Luc in Dutch because I know we are both native speakers and the message was to no use to people other than him. Not because it would be incomprehensible for you.Rex 19:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was in direct reference to me, meaning that you knew I would eventually read it. Ameise -- chat 22:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte benützen Sie beite nicht meine Diskussionsseite für ihre diskussion über eines Artikels. Danke. (This is supposed to be German...)

Anyway, I believe we are all aware of Babelfish, so even if you didn't understand German, the fact that Rex addressed me in Dutch can't really be seen as an attempt to make it incomprehensible to you. --LucVerhelst 00:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The German was understandable, but I would rather post here otherwise Rex fills the page with insults against me and I retaliate. Ameise -- chat 01:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Belgium

Hallo,

ik heb momenteel het initiatief genomen voor het nieuwe WikiProject Belgium, neem eens een kijkje en als je geïnteresseerd bent aarzel dan niet om je bij de deelnemers te zetten!

Trouwens, ik ben ook actief op de Engelstalige Wikinews, ben je geïnteresseerd in een interview over de komende verkiezingen?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply)</sall> 00:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hey,

ik weet niet of je ervaring hebt met WikiProjects, maar ik zou je willen vragen om te overwegen je terug bij de deelnemers te zetten:

Al is het maar om ons 1e ex-lid te zijn.
Het betekent niet dat je ook maar iets moet doen: je werkt toch sowieso al aan artikels over belgië; het is niet zoals iets waarvoor je je vrijwillig opgeeft en dan vanalles moet terugdoen, eerder een plek waar je terechtkan voor vragen, ideëen, kortom ik vind het vooral belangrijk als ontmoetingsplaats voor Belgen en gëinteresseerden.
Stel dat we bvb. id toekomst een bericht verspreiden, ik zeg nu maar iets bvb. dat we een meeting zouden doen in Brussel ofzo, of een foto zoeken van iets... als je daarin geïnteresseerd zou zijn, als je gecontacteerd zou willen worden of zelf nog af en toe komt kijken, is het mss beter van je naam gewoon er te hebben staan.
Maar dus nog eens, het is totaal geen werk (je hebt het ongetwijfeld druk met de verkiezingen enzo), gewoon uit sympathie of steun kan je er ook opstaan.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Why are you so quick to judge me and go "OMG HE VIOLATED THE 3RR, he must be banned!", but when Rex violates it... multiple times... you do nothing? Ameise -- chat 01:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating the 3RR and doing it conciously : "Yes, I just violated the 3RR, but so did you." If Rex was violating it, he was doing it enforcing Wikipedia guidelines. --LucVerhelst 01:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are open to interpretation; Rex was reverting edits which he disagreed with, as was I. I fail to see any difference except difference in viewpoints. Ameise -- chat 01:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only conciously, but such even after a warning that he had already surpassed the 3RR limit: this had been on Ameise-aka-Antman's talk page before he wiped it. His reaction on my talk page is incorrect: at his first revert he had reinserted a phrase that had been in the article before, and simply switched around a few words without changing what is actually said, that does constitute a revert. His removal of {{fact}}-tags did, as I stated, revert that particular sentence to its former state, thus there were 4 reverts within 24 hours even before his more recent attempts to put in a disputed part of the phrase at another section. His remark on my use of the English language, can refer to the forgotten "became" in front of "removed at 1:08" and is by no means an excuse for not understanding the message. I do not wish to spend my time on this edit war, though clearly Ameise/Antman uses arguments that are false by his own standards: forementioned removal of {{fact}}-tags had his edit comment: "({{fact}} belongs at the end of sentences, not at the end of clauses.)" but later, at 2006-10-01 00:10, with the edit comment "(Which part requires citation?)" he removed a {{fact}}-tag that Rex had placed at the end of a sentence. As all attempts to persuade Ameise/Antman to a reasonably acceptable attitude have obviously been proven futile, I assume an administrator will either have to block him (3RR+) or be called in for mediation (which is a rather tedious procedure). Good luck, — SomeHuman 1 Oct 2006 02:28 (UTC)

Strange, that all of the people who are against me right now happen to be either native Dutch speakers or advanced Dutch speakers. Ameise -- chat 02:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I even know the other two as Wikipedians and was at times strongly opposing some particular contribution of either one. Thus I guess we may still have eachother's talk pages on our watchlists. Though in this case I was called in for help by the one I know as the most patient type, the one you call a Dutch nationalist had earlier called for my assistance so as to review his edits on another article in order to avoid any unconscious Dutch bias. He is far less radical than you who waves the Prussian flag in people's faces with each of your signatures: Is it not about time to accept that the Kaiser lost WWI? As native speakers of Dutch or one of its dialects, we also know something about that language and its history. Because of that knowledge, not because of some personal interest, we dispute your recent edits that make several assumedly false and misleading assessments, none of which you have provided a single source for even while the three of us have explicitly and repeatedly been asking for such. — SomeHuman 1 Oct 2006 03:21 (UTC)

The only thing I have posted is that Dutch and German retain some mutual intelligibility, but apparently that is POV as well. Ameise -- chat 03:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can wipe your user talk page, not the history of the 'German language' article... — SomeHuman 1 Oct 2006 03:32 (UTC)

I posted two things that were apparently controversial: that a mutual intelligibility exists, and that for many years Dutch was considered a dialect of German, and I also appended the fact that it was a false consideration. I removed the latter as it caused too much conflict, it is/was REX who was unwilling to compromise and demanded that both be removed. Ameise -- chat 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlaams Belang

I think the intro is better. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the encouragement and help. You are a real asset to wikipedia. Weasel words get on my nerves, and so does using Wiki to promote opinions. Great job with the article--Connor K. 20:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting Hans Van Themsche

Luc, on my talk page, you can verify a new attempt to fit both MSIE (well) and Firefox (not quite as well but now acceptably?). That talk section will be removed later on. — SomeHuman 7 Oct 2006 01:33 (UTC)