User talk:SomeHuman

Your edit to Rumold

Your recent edit to Rumold was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC) -- Proper update brought under the attention of the bot's humble creator -- SomeHuman 2006-06-15 20:15 (UTC)

Please note: Polylerus, the initiator and only author (besides my edits) of the 'Rumold' article thanked me for its move to 'Saint Rumbold' on the latter's talk page. -- SomeHuman 2006-06-15 21:24 (UTC)

Flemish

I hope that the sources I added can help in this situation get the intro summarized better - Trödel 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved

• A word from Budgiekiller 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC) moved to Campanology talk page on 2006-06-26 23:10 (UTC).

Constructive debates

Thanks for the info. I had already noticed it. (Is this my first step in becoming a BW ? - bekend wikipedian :-] ) --LucVerhelst 17:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Secular ethics

Hallo, I voted for the article, since I believe the topic is quite interesting. As for participating in the content of the article : I believe the subject is a bit over my head, sorry...

(As for the rattled chains: I'm well aware. I've already acted to prevent future abuse, though these may have been futile.) --LucVerhelst 07:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Heya, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your comments for this article's Weekly Improvement Drive nomination. Cheers! Star Ghost 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the edits on the Secular Ethics article, we are trying to undertake a major rewrite and try and get it up to GA status. Any further input is greatly appreciated. Thanks again! --Chrisrivers 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point on the criticisms, although I do beleive that having an outline of the general criticisms of secular ethics is important to have in the article. And since secular ethics main criticisms come from religious ethicists it makes sense to have it on these terms. Although it would be good to have each individual religions objections to secular ethics I imagine the anti-secular ethicist arguments would be very similar (in all theistic religions). Would you suggest that we remove the criticisms section entirely or simply expand it? --Chrisrivers 20:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said on Chris's page, I think a good compromise would be to link to an article which contains the related criticism, what say you? Star Ghost 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

On a lighter note

User:Rex Germanus started a (somewhat lighter) section on my talk page that you might find interesting. It concerns Dutch dialects. --LucVerhelst 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it's at Talk:Dutch language where he intends to compile his list. And he has one category for "Brabantic" (with only Antwerps as specific case). I thought he was going to look for other city's dialects, too. --LucVerhelst 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I guess I need to be more careful in reverting articles. ;) — Exteray who had forgotten to sign here 2006-07-28 18:19 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the Propose to Merge flags on Cognitivism and Non-cognitivism. Each article is indeed significant on its own.--Sam 03:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hans Van Themsche

Hi,

You reverted some of my changes to Hans Van Themsche.

I made this remark on the talk page:

I would like change the sentence "Fortunately a Turkish courier could quickly extinguish the fire, as the apartment above the office was inhabited" to "A Turkish courier could quickly extinguish the fire". I feel that the way it is now, the message conveyed in the sentence is that the fire bombing wouldn't have mattered if the building wouldn't have been inhabited. Like it is now, I feel it's POV against the far right youth organisation involved.

Additionally, I would like to discuss the "Vlaams Belang" subtitle. I shortened it to "Vlaams Belang", you reverted it back to "Murderer's background and alleged responsibility of the Vlaams Belang party and of its voters". I shortened it, because in general, titles and subtitles aren't used to summarise the following paragraphs, but to guide readers through a text. Therefore, they should be short and easily understandable. The way it is now, it feels awkward.

On the other hand, I can understand the sensitivity of the words "Vlaams Belang". Maybe we could change it into "Responsibilities" ? --LucVerhelst 20:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• The title 'Killer's background ...' (only recently changed to 'Murderer's background ...) had been the result of a near edit war some time ago and had satisfied parties involved. That is generally a good reason not to touch it.
  Three different aspects, though all related to alleged resposibilities of far or extreme right, are specifically noteworthy: 1. family background which also involves pre-'Vlaams Belang' issues; 2. Vlaams belang party; 3. a rare and to my knowledge new issue of a major politician straightforwardly putting responsibility also with the voters for that party. Your edit of the title de facto reconciliated the usual politically correct attitude of blaming the Vlaams Belang for all evil but certainly not the voters who are always right in a democracy. Contrasting with that point of view, De Gucht's accusation has been discussed quite prominently in the media, and deserves a title. I think my reverting to the long version draws attention to each element and to the mutual aspect of the three issues, and it should stay: Putting the subject under a short title hides the major elements, putting the elements in three titled (sub)sections hides their common aspect.
  We had some discussions defending same or opposing aspects before and I know and appreciate your edits to be valuable and sincere, forgive me for having stated my arguments a bit harshly here: I do feel quite sure about the importance of them. Good initiative to insert long overdue translations of references, Luc. — SomeHuman 2006-08-01 22:20 and 2006-08-02 01:01 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I don't fully agree, but I see the merits of the longer title. Thanks for your input. --LucVerhelst 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Thank you

No problem, it could happen to anyone. Keep up the good work. Regards -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Confermation of translation ... to avoid more fuss with anynymous IP

An anonymous contributor has been on my back on the Glorious Revolution article, eventhough I'm correct from a dictionary and reference point he keeps coming up with new request ... in his latest removing of my reference, he ask for a 3rd party translation, you speak Dutch and English on a near native level so could you please check my translation (and confirm its (in)accuracy on the talk page) and if correct restore my version so I avoid breaking the 3RR.

Thanks in advance. Rex 16:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(Reinserted reference with new translation, that is not significantly different from Rex's; dropped a note on his talk page — SomeHuman 19 Aug2006)

Ik weer ...

If you've got some time ... could you check out Ten days campaign, I just wrote it and although I tried to stay objective (honestly) I'm afraid I'm quite biased here so if you could "refine" it by adding Belgian view points as well thereby evening out the article a bit? Rex 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(Dropped a few notes on the Rex's talk page — SomeHuman 20 Aug2006)

WP:3RR

I am sorry that you are not appreciating my argument, but please do not edit-war. Beware of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Tewfik^Talk 03:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you review the definition of vandalism - this is a content dispute, and you are not presenting the "proper" sourcing necessary. I'm not sure how else to put forth the case on Talk, but those two nonmainstream sources are not the same as the multiple wire-service stories, quotes from world leaders, or two UN SC resolutions. Please engage me there, and I will attempt again to convey my points, but please do not engage in more reversions. Tewfik^Talk 03:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violation of WP:3RR for a period of 12 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Request no to block: Invalid reason for blocking given, WP:3RR does not apply to reverting Wikipedia:vandalism. See User talk:Tewfik section 'Last warning' and the there mentioned article's talk page. More precisely, see the history page of user Tewfik's talk page, since he quickly and unilaterally destroyed the vandalism warning while continuing vandalism:

• 2006-08-28T05:54:13 Tewfik (→Last warning - 'noting' out inappropriate vandalism tag)
• 2006-08-28T05:44:53 SomeHuman (→Last warning - reconfirm (Tewfik reverted possibly before being able to read vandalism warning here))
• 2006-08-28T05:21:45 SomeHuman (Last warning)

Decline reason:

You clearly violated WP:3RR. Your claims that Tewfik's edits are vandalism are incorrect. This plainly is a content dispute and you cannot revert a content dispute more than 3 times in 24 hours. You reverted the article 4 times and were correctly blocked for it. Gwernol 06:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

---

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.

Confirmation (sacrament)

The discussion hereunder was started on user Lima's talk page, see there also for my replies. — SomeHuman

The sources quoted indicate that the rites in question were intended precisely to take the place of the religious confirmation. The ages of 10 and 14 given as that for communion and confirmation may mean that it was the Protestant rite (Konfirmation, not Firmung) that gave the chief inspiration. And it was doubtless to fit in with National Socialist policy that the Protestant Reich Church dropped its own rite of Confirmation. If the article Confirmation (sacrament) is to include also non-religious ceremonies modelled on the religious ones - and it was you who inserted this matter, and I don't say your initiative was wrong - I think all this information highly relevant. Am I wrong? Oh, I must add that I am unaware that scouts hold Confirmation-like rites, such as the Hitler-Jugend held. Lima 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not compare Humanism with Nazi doctrine. I compare Nazi youth ceremonies with the religious Confirmation rites that they were meant to counterbalance or rather outweigh. Why should I not do so? Lima 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The National Socialists invented Confirmation-like ceremonies. That is a fact, one moreover that is worth mentioning in an article on Confirmation. If you think your kind of Confirmation-like ceremony is worth mentioning, you may, of course, if you like, mention it too. Perhaps there are also other imitations worth mentioning. Each is independent of the other, and can remain, even if the other(s) is/are removed. What's your problem? I am not asking you to remove the mention of your Confirmation-like ceremony. Lima 23:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Nazi followed a spirit of the time," you say. Surely, all the more reason to mention their deliberate use of a Confirmation-like ceremony. Once more, what is wrong with mentioning in an article on Confirmation an important initiative that was admittedly intended to imitate and that was hoped would eventually entirely replace religious Confirmation? Another thing, "a sociological meaning and evolution" is not the intention of the article: the title of the article is "Confirmation (sacrament)", not "Confirmation (rite of passage etc.)" Lima 07:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have several times reread your latest communication, but still do not understand on what grounds you claim that it is wrong to mention in the Confirmation article the German ceremony, which was not just a traditional coming-of-age rite, such as might be in use in Africa, but was instead explicitly linked with and opposed to the religious Confirmation rite. It therefore seems to be definitely relevant to an article on religious Confirmation. It also seems to be sufficiently noteworthy. Lima 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I inserted the quotations only because I sensed reluctance to accept that there ever was a National Socialist deliberate counterpart to Confirmation. Initially I would jut have inserted a mention of the fact, and nothing more. Lima 17:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

De l'Ecluse

[copy] Thank you to you and Luc Verhelst 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)

Thanks for the Dutch language link repair

Thanks for this I must have still had something else on my clipboard. Rex 14:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Insription

Not that this is a biggie, but per the OED,

[ad. L. inscriptin-em, n. of action from inscrbre to INSCRIBE. Cf. F. inscription (Rabelais, 16th c., in Hatz.-Darm.).]

1. The action of inscribing; the action of writing upon or in something. (In quots. fig.) rare.

OK, it's rare, but I wanted you to know I hadn't lost my marbles.:) >br> BTW, your emendation to the paragraph is rather interesting. If unbidat ghe is accurate, the claim of the sentence being OE becomes even more doubtful. My personal opinion is that it is not OE, but I'm just one linguist in thousands, so my opinion is best taken with grain of salt. Anyway, you've done really good work on that article. •Jim62sch• 22:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The "lost my marbles" thing was just a joke, I know you didn't imply it. I didn't know there was a Latin version, but you're right, if it's expectamus that would be 1PP.

And what's with the vandalism on the Dutch page -- seems like an odd page to vandalise (unless it was a short person who is really made that the Dutch have moved to the top position in the "world's tallest people" category). Anyway, that one attempt to cast Dutch as a dialect of German pissed me off, and, even though it wasn't really vandalism, seemed like nationalism running rampant (which is just as bad if not worse.) •Jim62sch• 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

AN

Hi there. it´s ok. you have been cleaning up remanents of pre-MediaWiki software, where there was not a different namespace separated from the article one. There have been some attempts of normalizinf before, what may have yield some strange results. Thanks for the work. --AstroNomer 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Robotocracy

Looks like Robotocracy got the axe, but I asked the admin who did it for the info, as I'm very sure this article itself doesn't have a problem with OR or V as a whole. If you'd like to help, or have suggestions for a better name, let me know. Mister.Manticore 14:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your "ethnicity"

Moved comment in Dutch towards my user talk page on the Dutch-language Wikipedia. Answered there. — SomeHuman 23 Sep2006 19:00 (UTC)

I see and understand.Rex 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely, I hope, because I'm not all too sure that I do ;-) — SomeHuman 23 Sep2006 20:27 (UTC)

It's complicated, but I think I know what you mean. Rex 20:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Using -ise or -ize

Erased comment of 2006-09-24 21:15 (UTC) by ClairSamoht: a copy of that comment on Woodstone's talk page. Answered there as part of ongoing discussion. — SomeHuman 25 Sep2006 02:04 (UTC)

Bloodless

I imagine the Columbia encyclopedia is where the statement originally was derived from. My issue was that if it ever was significant, it is not now. I reran the search and got 800 returns this time- but most seem to indicate that it was "a bloodless revolution", or makes reference that it is sometimes called "the bloodless revolution", or independently terms it "the bloodless revolution" (that would be from the book titles). There are a few uses of "the bloodless revolution of 1688", 97 to be exact, and some do actually use bloodless as a proper noun, rather than as an adjective. But isn't there some level below which the usage is insignificant? Gabrielthursday 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(copy of reply on Gabrielthursday's talk page:)

You asked on my talk page: "Isn't there some level below which the usage is insignificant?". Yes: less than 1 good reference. The Columbia University Press published an encyclopedia that clearly states what I reinserted in the Glorious Revolution article. Google hit counts have nothing to do with quality and very little with significance. Please note that the article puts it, as it was before, as 'sometimes' – even less strong than the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. And for 'sometimes', the 980 or so 'hits' I got (and I did not check the relevance of each, thank you) will be sufficient. — SomeHuman 28 Sep2006 22:34 (UTC)

Well, accuracy is one thing, significance is another. The Columbia Encyclopedia certainly establishes its accuracy, but I continue wonder about its significance. This little debate of ours is incredibly minor- I'm less concerned about the immediate case than I am to know if there's some formal or informal standard which determines significance. Best, Gabrielthursday 23:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia states it is significant by mentioning it, if it's noteworthy for that encyclopaedia then it is sufficiently significant for 'ours'. For a guideline, see WP:Notability, and further considerations e.g. by Uncle G: On notability, by Stifle: Don't say non-notable.

(PS: The above handle especially what makes it worth having a whole article on a topic; having just a mere mention of some fact in an article will not need to qualify by such high standards, but it gives a hint what to pay attention to.) — SomeHuman 28 Sep2006 23:39 (UTC)

I was about to make that very point before you posted your postscript. I agree about the reduced standards, but I'm afraid that still does leave us with very little guidance. That the Columbia Encyclopedia includes it is a significant point, but not determinative in my view- other encyclopedias can include insignificant facts as well as ourselves. Perhaps the most significant thing about its inclusion is the statement that "bloodless revolution" reflects the whig interpretation. Gabrielthursday 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

...which is not even specified by the Columbia Encyclopedia's article – but 'ours' is more comprehensive. Then surely it should not leave out this alternative 'Bloodless Revolution' name. The 6th edition of a work that involves the reputation of the Columbia University, should not contain too many needless statements anyway. — SomeHuman 29 Sep2006 00:07 (UTC)

Sure. I wish there was some indication of wider use of "Bloodless Revolution", but one can't have everything. I remain a little skeptical, but I'm not going to revert the thing. Gabrielthursday 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

An afterword: I had lunch with a colleague this week, who, when I mentioned the overthrow of James II, said "Oh, the Bloodless Revolution, right?" I stand corrected. A tip of my hat. Gabrielthursday 04:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

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 15:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Four Reverts

First off, please use English syntax when speaking to me, not German/Dutch, otherwise I have difficulty reading it. It was not 4 reverts:
18:23, September 29, 2006 Antman (Talk | contribs) -- I did NOT revert his edit, I made my own edit, my paragraph was entirely different than the original.
10:07, September 30, 2006 Antman (Talk | contribs) (Stop being unreasonable.) -- A revert, yes.
10:26, September 30, 2006 Antman (Talk | contribs) ({{fact}} belongs at the end of sentences, not at the end of clauses.) -- Not a revert, an edit, I only removed some of the {{fact}} as he was {{fact}} spamming.
14:42, September 30, 2006 Antman (Talk | contribs) (I disagree with POV edit, see talk page.) -- A revert, yes.
That is two reverts, Rex reverted three times but I don't see you warning him. Ameise -- chat 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

For whom it may concern, I refuted this on the talk page of Luc Verhelst with whom Antman aka Ameise had continued edit warring after Rex (see above) had gone to bed. — SomeHuman 1 Oct2006 08:23 (UTC)

No, you didn't refute it, you simply continued your protection of Rex but your attack on me. Ameise -- chat 08:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As all of us, Rex may welcome some assistance, but he is not likely to be a person who would need my protection. Your assumption that he needs such while you are the only person who seems to be bothering him, seems to imply that you are committing personal attacks. Your (recent) contributions list indicates people's talk page cluttering by repeating yourself without introducing useful material, and no addition to the content of an article besides reverts and tagging or replacing Polish names by German ones (while I do not contest that at least in some cases the German name may also be the one most commonly used in English). The loss of Wikitime you cause to me and other contributors cannot be made up for by the few acceptable minor changes you seem to bring on the encyclopaedia. This and my other actions do not constitute an attack on you, though express obvious observations from which you should draw sensible conclusions. — SomeHuman 1 Oct2006 10:23 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked anyone, no more that Rex has called me a Nazi. You lose your own Wikitime by supporting Rex in his silly crusade against me. Ameise -- chat 16:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Show me where I called you a nazi and I'll leave wikipedia right away. — Rex 17:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel like wallowing thru pages of both of our idiocies. Can we just get this over with and start being civil again, I don't like being on the constant defensive. Ameise -- chat 17:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Zie je Somehuman ... geen ruggegraat ;-) Rex 18:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Or common sense. Wait and see whether any future contributions will be properly sourced from start. — SomeHuman 1 Oct2006 18:40 (UTC)

In that case, contributions, like the old paragraph which said that there is NO mutual intelligibility, needs to be properly sourced as well. Ameise -- chat 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Somehuman, stel dat jij echt een hekel aan iemand hebt en je weet zeker dat hij/zij je een nazi heeft genoemd, maar hij/zij ontkent dit en biedt aan wikipedia te verlaten als jij het kan bewijzen. Wat zou jij doen? (als je liever hebt dat ik in het Engels tik moet je het gewoon zeggen hoor) Rex 18:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want you to leave, you're a good editor. I just want you to think before removing my edits for lack of citation, and putting your own edits in without citation as well. Ameise -- chat 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So according to you I'm a good editor ánd a nasty neo-nationalistic (whaterever that is) Dutchman ... how does one combine the two?Rex 19:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as you edit only Dutch stuff you are fine, but once you start going outside of the Hollandosphere... Ameise -- chat 19:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So you once again contradict yourself.Rex 19:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you always have to act as such an ass? And that is not a personal insult, that is an observation as to your behavior; it is immature and nonconstructive. Ameise -- chat 19:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Let it be clear that it is you who is immature and unconstructive. You continually evade requests for referenced and lie about what you support continuously, and constantly make personal insult with lame excuses like "that is not a personal insult, that is an observation".Rex 19:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

-Sigh-, this is pointless. I am arguing with a person who hardly has a 3rd grader's knowledge of the English language, who obviously has never read the Wikipedia regulations such as WP:POINT, WP:POV, or Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. No matter what I say or do, he constantly reverts my edits, with lame and bogus excuses such as stating that I need citations, when he then hypocritically makes edits stating the opposite of what I do without citing anything at all. It is hopeless to work with Rex, because he is arrogant and a fool. He refuses to work with me on anything, and even compromise. It is his way or else, and I am frankly sick and tired of it. From now on, I will do the same thing Rex does -- I will follow his every edit, and anything I find that is even slightly off I will immediately RVV, as I now consider Rex no better than a vandal for his poor Wikipediamanship. Ameise -- chat 19:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you two that this is my talk page, neither of you gives me a chance of putting anything in and I hate my mouth being plastered tight }-#
I like Rex to stay on the English language Wikipedia and as a good editor to keep throwing out unsourced material whenever he disputes its correctness, and expect it not to become reinserted unless it's accompanied by a proper reference. If he only doubts it, he might look for a proper source if he would like to do that effort, or else put a {{fact}}-tag in.
Antman's earlier request as how Rex was to disprove "mutually comprehensible" went a lot further than what he stated here above: If he'd had asked for sources for "not mutually intelligible" as was found in the article (version of 2006-09-29 17:24 by Cakeandicecream) instead of starting to reinsert an incorrect paragraph that had to my knowledge originally been inserted by BlueMars, there would not even have been a dispute or the speedy outcome would have been quite different.
If any one of you likes to continue arguing the topic, please do so on the German language page; for throwing insults, find another chatbox with moderator-on-sick-leave. — SomeHuman 1 Oct2006 19:42 (UTC)

This will be my last post here, but for the record, I -did- ask for sources, and Rex just repeated the same old "you have no validation to demand sources because you are ignorant" skit. Ameise -- chat 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Formatting Hans Van Themsche

Hi, this is the way Hans Van Themsche looks on my screen after your last change. My changes to the formatting of Hans Van Themsche were aimed at correcting this.

I'm using Firefox on W2000. -- ➌  LucVerhelst  07:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Temporarily shown here: Sample using slightly modified parameters, to be verified for Firefox/Win2000 (expecting a still very thin space between horizontal line at the bottom and the following text, but readable, and also quite acceptable for more common MSIE browsers - unlike an earlier attempted modification with <br> by Luc):

The Antwerp public prosecutors said "on first investigation of his environment and family [Hans] seems not to be brought up in a racialist or violent setting".

---

Limited by horizontal lines, next paragraph does not cite sources or references that appear in a credible publication. The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations.

Allegations against Vlaams Belang must be understood (...) parliamentarians:

"The predators have teeth and claws. (...) They have switchblades and butchers knives and they know how to use them."

Although this is not an official statement of Vlaams Belang, and Beliën has no official ties to the party, it offers some sense of the type of rhetoric which has led to its widespread inculpation.

---

The family of Luna denounced a letter of sympathy from Vlaams Belang, and asked to be left in peace until after the funeral.

So Luc, does this look acceptable? (The real article got proper sources thus it's gone there anyway, but I might use a box with horizontal line delimiters elsewhere in the future). — SomeHuman 7 Oct2006 00:59 (UTC)