User talk:Luc.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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 need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! STTW (talk)  12:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Tree of Jesse
Hi Luc!

Thanks for your edit to Tree of Jesse! Your clarification was useful, but in entirely the wrong place! I put it into the paragraph on the discussion of the Latin terms, where it fitted better.

The aim of that last sentence was to give the clearest possible statement, in English, as to what Matthew was trying to convey. Matthew wasn't trying to convey anything in Latin! So even though the Matthew helped to explain the Latin, the Latin did not help to clarify Matthew, which was the aim of the exercise. This is why I moved it!

I hope you like the article! True Cross is also a good article, from a different, but somewhat overlapping perspective. Are you Catholic or Protestant? I like editting articles about aspects of religion to make sure that they are from a sufficiently neutral and scholarly viewpoint that they don't get vandalised and incite really prejudiced criticism which is hurtful to the devout!Amandajm 09:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Amandajm, Thank you for re-editing the Tree of Jesse. You put the clarification to the right spot! Perhaps it might be nice to make a separate article about Virga Jesse in combination with the Virga Jesse floruit in ChoralWiki (http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Virga_Jesse_floruit). I am a catholic, supporting your goal of neutrality. Luc. 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

Fundamental rights
Please do not do cut and paste moves, as you did with Fundamental rights. It destroys the edit history of the page, and is a violation of our licensing structure. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Luc.! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Bernat Rosner -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Transparency Directive
I have removed the content you added to the above article. I can find no evidence that the EU legislation is in the public domain, so we have to assume it is copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Diannaa. Thanks for your message. Maybe this is the evidence you were looking for: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011D0833 My understanding is that it is allowed to use EU (legislation) documents, as long as the source is acknowledged (see article 6) and the contents are not distorted. I made a reference to the source in the first lines of the article. Apart from this, I am not literally copying its text, but summarizing the key elements. So I think there should be no objection. Luc. (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of problems. (1) under "Conditions for reuse of documents", it states that the document can be re-used under the condition that the source is acknowledged. You didn't fulfill this obligation very well, as you didn't cite a source. (2) Under the terms of our CC-by-SA license, users are permitted to create derivative works. Since this is the case, we have no way of fulfilling the obligation "not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents". However, I did find this document which states that government works, the text of legislation, and the like, is Not protected by copyright in this body. So I think it will be okay to put it back as long as we cite the source and frame it as a quotation. — Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)