User talk:Rudi Dierick

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:

• You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• Remember to use the show preview button before you save a page.
• If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 23:38, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions in talk pages

Please read Wikipedia:Talk Page#Standards and conventions of writing and layout and Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, and sign your posts. This is an essential aspect of communication here. It helps other users understand the progress and evolution of a dialog. Thanks. --Edcolins 20:55, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I registered as a contributor and read those pages. Whenever you have other or particular suggestions, feel free to forward the official guidelines, or any other scientific or legally relevant information. Statements of political parties and organisations and other non-authoritative sources are more appropriate in specific articles on those organisations, but not in general articles.

regards,, Rudi

islam in France

just to let you know, there was stuff you out on the Islam in France page that were already there

Dear, sorry, erronous double posting as far as I understood. --Rudi Dierick 16:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Qaradawi

Dear, about mr. Qaradawi, you said youn wanted to see sources. But, in the text, you have cut out two of the sources I added So what do you really want? It appears to me that you radically remove several well-documented sections that are critical on Qaradawi! That appears to me censorship on objective information! --Rudi Dierick 13:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please post to my talk page, not the user page. You gave the links to the main site, not the exact pages where all these claims are made. The article already has FGM section. Please do not repeat FGM in several different parts of the article. That's redundant. Post your edits about FGM in that section OneGuy 15:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome

You're welcome. It was not a big deal... Happy new year to you and your family as well. And happy editing! If you have time, do not hesitate to review the L&H article, I feel sorry to be the only one who contributed to it. --Edcolins 20:54, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Someone has to start it. Also for you, my very best wishes for the coming year. I will start it with some weeks off ...--Rudi Dierick 14:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MonsterOfTheLake (talk • contribs) 22:54, July 23, 2006 (UTC).

"Prophet" Muhammed?

This is about your recent edit to the Sharia article:

Currently reads:

'Freedom of speech': "Sharia does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of the prophet Muhammad."

"Prophet Muhammad" is not NPOV. It should just say Muhammad. The Wiki uses Muhammad everywhere else. The word prophet is used only when hadiths are being referenced. If you have confusion see the article Muhammad.

This is not a Muslim Wiki, where Muhammed will be called "Prophet Muhammed". Try to understand what this Wiki is. It is to be unbiased. You have a problem, go change Muhammaed to Prophet Muhammed in the Muhammad article. I am bringing up this issue on the Discussion page of Sharia. Good luck.--Matt57 22:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV please

§1. Though I would like to encourage you to continue your attempts to correctly state that cities and municipalities in Flanders are indeed part of that region, please be careful not to leave out the country as well. That is done for all cities in the world and Flanders is not a country. Precisely because some people would like it to be one, edits that pretend such desire to be a fact (regardless the text linked by 'Flanders' or 'Flemish Region') will read as a violation of WP:NPOV.
§2a. You also created a sentence like "... in Flanders, one of the three communities and regions of Belgium", which is rather nonsense (the third community, German-speaking, has nothing to do with the third region, the Brussels Capital Region).
§2b. Furthermore, a city or municipality is not in a community; just the inhabitants can be part of the latter. More importantly, communities have nothing to do with a geographical location, and that's what each city/municipality's intro sentence is supposed to point out.
§3. Also replacing 'the Belgian coast' with 'the Flemish coast', is unacceptable while the next statement mentions the Dutch border. Especially for the English-language Wikipedia, the national borders are more important than those between regions, and in English one will not commonly speak about the 'Flemish coast'. Compare: I do not like the English referring to our language as 'Dutch', a word they use for Dutch people - as if it were their language and not just as much ours. But those things have historical causes that we as editors on Wikipedia have no right to present as if they were changed. We can fight misconceptions by presenting proper facts, but we cannot fight the language.
§4. While you are at it, may I suggest trying to keep or create a rather consistent way of mentioning the location, e.g.:

• X is a municipality in the province of Y, Flanders, Belgium.

X is a [[municipality]] in the [[Provinces of Belgium|province]] of [[Y]], [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], [[Belgium]].

• X is a city and a municipality in the province of Y, Flanders, Belgium.

X is a [[city]] and a [[municipality]] in the [[Provinces of Belgium|province]] of [[Y]], [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], [[Belgium]].

• X is a city and a municipality, and the capital of Y province in Flanders, Belgium.

X is a [[city]] and a [[municipality]], and the capital of [[Y]] [[Provinces of Belgium|province]] in [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], [[Belgium]].

 Note 1. In these sentences, one should go from the smallest (city) to the largest (country), never small/bigger/in between/biggest or so.
 Note 2. I assume it may be better to say 'a city and a municipality', than 'a city and municipality' because the two entities do not exactly coincide: the latter often comprises the city proper and several villages.
 Note 3. I suggest linking the word 'province' to 'Provinces of Belgium' (more useful and to-the-point than the article province and a link to the latter occurs on the first line of Provinces of Belgium anyway. (Something like that would not be proper for 'municipality' because the article is about that topic: the term may need to be explained, one does not wish to get a list.) An alternative might be to leave 'province' as [[province]] but give 'Belgium' the link [[Communities, regions of Belgium|Belgium]] (as Belgium is here clearly used in that meaning). In this sentence, the normal article Belgium may be irrelevant and if one would be interested anyway, the suggested link's article has as its first word Belgium.
 Note 4. E.g. 'Antwerp province' (just 'Antwerpen' would be the city, thus we speak about 'provincie Antwerpen') but 'the province of Limburg' (there is no city Limburg, Flemish people often refer to the province simply as 'Limburg'; it is not 'Belgian Limburg' as that is not its name, and the country will follow in these sentences anyway - mentioning it once is enough, I assume), but verify that the links for the provinces' names end up on the correct pages (e.g. [[Antwerp (province)|Antwerp]], [[Limburg (Belgium)|Limburg]]).
 Note 5. When looking up a city or municipality, one will not be looking for the constitutional nature of Flanders as a region. I think it is better to avoid the lengthier (and after seeing it three times: boring) style as now found in many articles, like:

•  X is a municipality in the province of Y, Flanders, one of the three regions of Belgium.

 X is a [[municipality]] in the [[Provinces of Belgium|province]] of [[Y]], [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], one of the three [[regions]] of [[Belgium]].

— SomeHuman 8 Oct2006 23:41-23:59 (UTC)

I agree with this, and have done a few reverts introducing the name of the country. The correct way of saying is municipality, province, Flemish region, Belgium, or equivalent.

Wikipedia should be no place to propagate separatist political ideas. LHOON 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

About §1: My leaving out of Belgium was mainly in search of the most compact, precise and accurate description. Anywaone who then clicks on 'Belgium' will find out anything needed. Always leaving in the belgium reference appears therefore totally redundant.

About §2a: That's inded correct, the 3rd region has nothing t do with the 3rd community, but ... (see below).

About §2b: Thanks for your attention to this confusion. What is your proposal to also include the communities, This appears quite relevant given that the Flemish community is by far much more important then the Flemish region (the region has no parliament, nor governement of its own; it just ceded all its constitutional competentcies to the Fl.community).

About §3: OK, I can follow your reasoning. Now trying to find the most appropriate way of formulating things.

About §4, note 1: OK

About §4, note 2: Indeed

About §4, note 3: Wouw; i'm not sure I understood this one.

About §4, note 5: yes, indeed, we beter go for the shortest and most accurate description. one question: there are no 'belgian' provinces anymore since the last institutional changes! The competency over the provinces also shifted to the Flemish and th Walloon region! So, maybe better indeed speak of province without anything else?

--Rudi Dierick 14:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I refactored my original comment by numbering the paragraphs so Rudi Dierick's will no longer feel compelled to insert reactions within a comment, thereby jumping ahead of Lhoon who had already reacted. For several reasons, it is not considered proper to insert comments inside a comment or between comments: newer comments always belong at the bottom of the relevant section, and may refer to paragraphs or to earlier comments when the need arises.

Though 'de Vlaamse regio' or 'Regio Vlaanderen' are proper for the region, the most commonly used name is simply 'Vlaanderen'. A longer name will rather be used when making clear distinction with the community, such as when stipulating which entity is legally authorized for a particular subject. But as Rudi Dierick pointed out, the distinction has become pointless as far as it concerns the part of the community that lives in the region: decisions for both are made by the same government and parliament. Thus for being short and for following most common usage, we should read 'Flanders' which, for accuracy (as here the geographical location is considered), must link straightforwardly to the region. Thus: [[Flemish Region|Flanders]] (which, compared to the link in Lhoon's sentence, is the other way around - the article Flanders is a de facto disambiguation page that elaborates on the distinctions more than the formal disambiguation page Flanders (disambiguation)).

Now Rudi,

Your comment on §1 is not very convincing: one cannot click on 'Belgium' if the term is not there. One should not have to click on a name of a province (in fact one might then with a same argument leave out the region: the province mentions that) or a region to find out in which country a municipality is to be found. Wikipedia does not handle other countries' municipalities like that. As most readers have an idea about the continent in which a country lies, the buck stops there.

The community is not to be mentioned (unless further down in a municipality's article if it would be particularly relevant): this does not belong in each article of a municipality, that's a matter on a more general level.

Allow me to clarify my note 3. with samples for the most simple situation (not a city, not a capital of a province):

• Option 1:

• X is a municipality in the province of Y, Flanders, Belgium.

X is a [[municipality]] in the [[Provinces of Belgium|province]] of [[Y]], [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], [[Belgium]]

• Option 2:

• X is a municipality in the province of Y, Flanders, Belgium.

X is a [[municipality]] in the [[province]] of [[Y]], [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], [[Communities, regions of Belgium|Belgium]]

In both normally readable sentences, click on 'province'; then in both these sentences, click on 'Belgium'. Whichever of these styles you choose, do not make a mix of both. Once chosen, you should also stick to that choice for all municipalities.

The competence for the provinces is not particularly relevant here, the intro sentences simply give a geographical situation for the municipality, not a political one.

— SomeHuman 9 Oct2006 18:10 (UTC)

I largely agree, but would anyway prefer to use the official term Flemish region in this context, rather than just Flanders, as the first clearly denotes the geographical entity which is referred to in this context (where the municipalities are actually located), and also to avoid confusion with the provinces of East and West Flanders, which constitute the historical territory of Flanders. It is complicated indeed, and is somewhat of a challenge to explain the governmental intricacies of Belgium to the non-initiated. So I would prefer the following expression:

• X is a municipality in the province of Y, Flemish Region, Belgium.

X is a [[municipality]] in the [[Provinces of Belgium|province]] of [[Y]], [[Flemish Region]], [[Belgium]]

Btw, the expression Vlaamse Regio or Regio Vlaanderen are never used, the correct expression in Dutch is Vlaams gewest. The word regio is used for a general geographical area and not for an administrative division (e.g. de regio Brussel means the large surroundings of Brussels, and not the Brussels gewest which is a clearly delimited entity).

LHOON 18:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the terms with 'regio' are rather common as well and always coincide with the 'Vlaams Gewest', but you are certainly right about 'het Vlaams Gewest' (both terms capitalized) being the official expression besides 'Vlaanderen'. From the Dutch-language Wikipedia article nl:Vlaams Gewest: "Meestal wordt het Vlaams Gewest gewoon Vlaanderen genoemd". That is my argument to put it as 'Flanders', which is official as well (even verdicts by the Raad van State sometimes refer to it as 'in Vlaanderen'), and it's short. The articles are about the municipality, the sentence about its location; not about the political or constitutional situation(*): in this sentence, we do not need to emphasize 'Flemish Region' any more than the official name for Belgium: 'Kingdom of Belgium'. The sentence may read rather awkwardly either way: "... in the province of Flemish Brabant, Flemish Region, Belgium" seems less informative about the dual name than "... in the province of Flemish Brabant, Flanders, Belgium"; on the other hand "... in the province of East Flanders, Flanders, Belgium" suggests an identical Flanders while East Flanders is rather westward in the Flemish Region... but "... in the province of East Flanders, Flemish Region, Belgium" may not be less misleading.

There is also the fact that the English Wikipedia rules decided that the name "Flemish Region" requires "Region" to be capitalized and I find it rather unstylish to see 'province' and 'Region' in one sentence. I am afraid that people will start correcting 'province' towards 'Province' and some others will correct 'Region' towards 'region'. Thus it will ethernally take continuously watching and correcting or we will soon have three styles instead of one for the municipalities in Flanders. That too is a practical reason to put it as Flanders. Moreover, the way it must be linked, goes to the article named "Flemish Region", thus anyone who might be willing to find out what exactly is meant by 'Flanders' gets the proper answer immediately.

(*) About official use and the Constitution: "overwegende dat (...) meer bepaald het Vlaams Parlement de vrijheid heeft de benamingen Vlaamse Gemeenschap en Vlaams Gewest te vervangen door Vlaanderen omdat de naamswijziging geen wijzigingen teweegbrengt in de bepalingen van de Belgische Grondwet ; de naamswijziging de machten, noch de bevoegdheden verandert en evenmin afbreuk doet aan de door de Grondwet bepaalde interinstitutionele verhoudingen ; (...) beslist 1° om deze redenen de benaming "Vlaanderen" in plaats van "Vlaamse Gemeenschap" en "Vlaams Gewest" te gebruiken ; 2° te onderzoeken voor welke publiekrechtelijke en/of privaatrechtelijke rechtshandelingen en/of feitelijk gebruik, de naam "Vlaanderen" zal worden gebruikt ; 3° te onderzoeken of het niet noodzakelijk is dit te doen in samenwerking met de Vlaamse regering.", excerpt from a 'voorstel tot resolutie' (proposal for resolution) in 1996 in the Flemish Parliament. I'm unaware of its outcome, but it clearly demonstrates which name is the more common, and 'Flanders' not violating constitutional concerns.

— SomeHuman 9 Oct2006 21:14 (UTC)

I just spotted a mistake I had made in the last unwikied sample line of my §4 (it showed [[provinceProvinces of Belgium|]] in which 'province' is pasted at the front instead of correctly at the rear). As I still suggest to use the §4 samples as the best choice, and since the unwikied lines can be copy/pasted directly (just appropriate names need to replace X and Y and 'Y province' or 'province of Y' will depend on the actual province), to avoid any errors - I deliberately violated normal procedure and corrected this in my original comment. — SomeHuman 9 Oct2006 21:53 (UTC)

The page 'Provinces of Belgium' was renamed (in Wiki-terminology 'moved to') 'Provinces of regions in Belgium' and pages other than on municipalities linking to it, became (or will very soon become) updated, just as the template {{Belgium}} (new title and note about the Brussels Capital Region not being (part of) or having a province. The template {{Belgium_provinces}} redirects to the forementioned one. Text for the articles on provinces (and for some other articles), where needed, became updated for provinces being part of (just) two regions. Now of course, all above links to 'Provinces of Belgium' redirect to 'Provinces of regions in Belgium'.

Correction: A Wikipedia guideline had given and may still give the impression that the proper indication of the province named Antwerp, would be 'Antwerp province', mainly because (in Dutch and in English) one rarely talks about the province by its official name 'Antwerpen'/'Antwerp' alone, as this far more commonly refers to its capital city. Nevertheless, a few web searches in English language texts showed that 'the province of Antwerp' is significantly more common. Furthermore, a search for 'province' on the official web site of the province of Antwerp proved its very few texts in English to use 'province of Antwerp': [1] or such with capital P [2],[3]. As the term 'province' is not part of the name, it should better not be capitalized; also its Wikipedia article is 'Antwerp (province)' and not 'Antwerp Province'. Since the only acceptable way to call any other province in Flanders a province, is as 'the province of Y', for a more consistent terminology (which is also a Wikipedia guideline), we should rather stick to 'the province of Antwerp' just as well. In our sentence, this renders 'province' as a link separated from the 'Antwerp' link; even if 'Antwerp province' gets two distinct links underneath, visually it appears as just one link and naturally withholds people from checking out the link under 'province'.

Conclusion: One should read my earlier §4 now as follows (I do not indent these lines, for easier reading):

§4. While you are at it, may I suggest trying to keep or create a consistent way of mentioning the location, e.g.:

• X is a municipality in the province of Y, Flanders, Belgium.

X is a [[municipality]] in the [[Provinces of regions in Belgium|province]] of [[Y]], [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], [[Belgium]].

• X is a city and a municipality in the province of Y, Flanders, Belgium.

X is a [[city]] and a [[municipality]] in the [[Provinces of regions in Belgium|province]] of [[Y]], [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], [[Belgium]].

• X is a city and a municipality, and the capital of the province of Y in Flanders, Belgium.

X is a [[city]] and a [[municipality]], and the capital of the [[Provinces of regions in Belgium|province]] of [[Y]] in [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], [[Belgium]].

Rudi, I hope this will simplify the task that you had (for 10 municipalities) started a few days ago.

— SomeHuman 10 Oct2006 23:43 (UTC)

Should we then, if the cuntry as a higher governing level is to be included, also mention the European Union. AS self-centered Euopeans, we might overlook this, but for people from far away, this might make much sense to me. And it would be more coherent. Secondly, given that the region has such a limited ignificance, it looks to me that the general language may be 'Flanders', where the link could then refer to the Flemish region. Moreover, the provinces do not directly 'belong' to Belgium as such anymore as these have been transferred also to the regions. they thus 'belong' to Belgium in a similar way as they belong to the European Union: indirectly! Thus, taking into account all this, we maybe better use following conventions:

• X is a municipality in the province of Y, Flanders, Belgium, European Union.

X is a [[municipality]] in the [[Provinces of regions in Flanders|province]] of [[Y]], [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], [[Belgium]], [[European Union]].

• X is a city and a municipality in the province of Y, Flanders, Belgium, European Union.

X is a [[city]] and a [[municipality]] in the [[Provinces of regions in Flanders|province]] of [[Y]], [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], [[Belgium]], [[European Union]].

• X is a city and a municipality, and the capital of the province of Y in Flanders, Belgium, European Union.

X is a [[city]] and a [[municipality]], and the capital of the [[Provinces of regions in Flanders|province]] of [[Y]] in [[Flemish Region|Flanders]], [[Belgium]], [[European Union]].

Given this, and (seems to have been saved before finishing the comment, thus unsigned — above comment by Rudi Dierick 12 Oct2006 11:39 (UTC)

and what? This comment seems unfinished, but nevertheless the following: I don't think mentioning the EU is relevant here, as this is not done with municipalities in other EU countries either. Furthermore, I prefer to maintain the province link to the page Provinces of regions in Belgium, rather than making a separate page for the provinces of the Flemish region. The page covering the whole of Belgium is very clear on the matter, and much more comprehensive for foreign users. LHOON 12:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree with Lhoon on this. I had already mentioned Europe. Before they follow a link to a municipality, most readers will be aware of Belgium's location (though not necessarily where in Europe and that would not be easy to put in the intro phrases). The linked article on Belgium should take care of such.

I had been considering the logical split of provinces, and this could create two shorter titles. By the way, in that case the title for the Flemish Region would be 'Provinces of the Flemish Region' ('Provinces of Flanders' could be too ambiguous) and not Rudi's typo-suggestion (red links) 'Provinces of regions in Flanders'   ;-D   But provinces have their own articles. And as a whole they have a history as well: they used to be Belgian, one became split across both regions, the Brussels-Capital Region is an enclave encompassed by province of another region... Therefore the provinces should stay in one synoptic article unless at one time the content would become so terribly long that splitting for the two regions and a 'History on provinces in Belgium' would prove necessary. We're still way off now, and it does not seem likely for the future – especially since the importance of provinces is perceived so that already a few proposals were made to abolish them altogether... — SomeHuman 13 Oct2006 01:14 (UTC)

given my quite well known pesonal positions in favour of Flanders and the European Union and in favor for a more mdest role for the belgian level (that certainly must be preserved), I very well know that my POV is a partisan one. therefore, I can only invite ALL contributors to leave aside also their Personal POV, and try to contribute all to an as neutral, accurate and up-to-date description of things. Having said that, I can only attract your attention to the following objective facts that, according to me, should influence how the objective reality s described:

1. Most people don't care a shit for the fine print of the institutionl differences between Flmish community and Flemish region. they just refer to 'Flanders'.
2. Also 99% of journalists, social scientists, and external observers completely leave those details out of any general description. For them, that's good for specialised articles in institutions, not fr geneal aricles and general descriptions.
3. As good as all representative politicians in flanders do the same thing. Moreover, there is just one 'political community', being a clearly identified ethnic group of people that have thei political parties, media, universities, ... bing th Flemish 'nation' (term used to avoid confusion with a political insitution).
4. Blgium has no competency anymre for municipalities, nor provinces!

Given all this, it appears a highly partisan political point of to try to still describe things in flanders primarily in a Belgian perspective and then to neglect the actual, relevant level 'Flanders' in order to confuse general readers with an institution that has so few meaning. Your insistence to still privileges the Belgian level of describing an actual reality that became both much more Flemish and much more European then just that Blgian nationalistic nation-state from the 19th century is thus far to partisan, to inaccurate and not informative enough to be kept. --Rudi Dierick 11:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm Flemish, I'm a European, but firstly I'm a Mechlinian. Should I in each municipality then put its distance from Mechelen? I'm also a Belgian citizen and – like it or not – that country is the major location that people ask me about once I leave the shadow of the St. Rumbolds Tower for more than a Sunday tour. And one of the reasons why I prefer 'Flanders', as you seem to agree upon, instead of 'Flemish Region' for situating any particular municipality. But as I stated before, even for an international English-language Wikipedia, most people that end up reading any article on a municipality in Belgium, will know that Belgium is in Europe and, as it was a founding country which encompasses the EC capital, that it belongs to the European Community – the latter is irrelevant for a sentence that simply locates a municipality. Thus I wrote (it seems long ago) "As most readers have an idea about the continent in which a country lies, the buck stops there" – that is at ...", Flanders, Belgium." — SomeHuman 13 Oct2006 19:33 (UTC)

Flemish emancipation movement

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Flemish emancipation movement, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Flemish emancipation movement. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Tocharianne 20:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yusuf Qaradawi

Your recent insertion into the article has not been particularly helpful. It mentions controversy over his positions, but there is no source proving such a controversy exists. You simply cited opinions from his own website and declared them on your own to be controversial, and this is in violation of the official Wikipedia:No original research policy.
Look man, I know the guy is controversial. A lot of the stuff he says is shocking, prejudiced, and boneheaded. But you can't just post his statements up and declare them controversial, because that's just your own opinion. It's not like it's hard to find criticism of him from a democratic perspective, you could probably find enough just google searching for five minutes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear, according to Wikipedia rules, everyone has the right to mention literal statements and sources. The sources from the statements I mentionned were ALL included. The criticism is mine. And I'm really surprised that you refuse me the right to publish these. Could you explain which Wikipedia-rule you think I might not have respected?

So, let's be clear: if you obkject against my opinion, or --Rudi Dierick (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I never disputed your right to mention "literal statements" so please don't put words in my mouth. As for your right to publish your opinion, where do you get that from? The opening line of the official Wikipedia:No original research policy clearly states that: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." It goes on to say that: "This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." The official WP:NOT#OR, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOT#BLOG policies are relevant here as well.

I don't disagree with your position per se. Personally, I think Qaradawi is a dangerous man and a big cause of extremism in the Middle East. But we have to follow the rules on this site, and your own criticism is not relevant to articles on here and neither is mine. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

in that case, shouldn't you limit your curring away to my opinion, and leave the statements in place? --Rudi Dierick (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Didn't you read any of the policies I just posted to you? This is NOT the place for anybody's personal opinions or criticism, and putting up his statements with the header that they caused controversy without any second hand sources calling them controversial IS your opinion.

Bottom line is, just posting up his statements on their own is OR and will not be allowed. Period. You and I both know there is criticism available out there, go search for it properly, write up a proper paragraph and not the big copy paste mess you've been touting, and show it on the talk pages so you, I, and others concerned may reach consensus on it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)