Thought i'd let you know that someone responded to a comment of yours in the discussion for the Hegelian master-slave dialectic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdance (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your message on my talk page. My bot did not "add the category", and its action was not nonsensical. The category Category:Pilots redirects to Category:Transportation occupations; there was consensus that this should be so, because "pilot" could equally mean "aviator" or "harbour pilot". My bot simply carried out this redirect. I notice that the article's categories now include Category:French aviators, which is probably what you intended, so the bot has performed its function well. Please check categories when you use them, rather than assuming that they contain what you expect. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 11:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you contesting vis a vis Pantycelyn's amputated arm? He was the one with the rolex in the first of the series, whose arm was cut off in an attempt to save the village from being bombed by mistake. Pydos 09:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How gloriously pedantic! Yes point taken, it should be clearer. Thank you for the compliment, its one of my better articles. Will you/have you already made the changes? Pydos 10:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, and naturally i'll keep i eye open for your son. Strange co-incidences i admit get worse. Have you seen Christopher Knight (author) ...a page i wrote on the noted author? Pydos 10:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well better leave it there in case it gets wierd. No doubt i'll see you around the page. Has your son tried to find where Bianca was murdered yet? Pydos 10:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. Theres no moulin (closest is a seedy club called Yoko's, but i met Sospan's descendants on the Pier. I still need to go up the Cliff Railway and play the crazy golf. Hwyl (bye in welsh). Pydos 11:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's either a completely broken bot or a moderately clever vandal. In any case, nothing to worry about; the message has no meaning, and you are not, to the best of my knowledge, under any restrictions. Sorry for the trouble! Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it.

That's really a null contribution to the discussion. We have notability criteria to apply to products and services, which biscuits produced by a biscuit manufacturer certainly are, at WP:CORP. If you wish to actually help the discussion, perform the requisite research. Look for multiple non-trivial published works, from people other than the manufacturer, on each biscuit. If you find them, add them to the article and mention in the discussion that they exist. Uncle G 17:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would take the initiative in getting the List of Muslims articles deleted, but I was criticized quite strongly when I did just that back in February (although there were additional factors that led to that criticism). Perhaps, however, it might have been better if I had co-nominated fewer articles to appear less drastic. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominees pages that were done before I came along didn't have the years at the top either, but all is fixed now. It really does make more sense to have that up there... Thanks for pointing it out! _Classicaltorture 01:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider revisiting this discussion? Current opinions run 10-4 in favor of keeping the article and I think all the serious concerns have been addressed. Respectfully, Durova 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdate of her has been fixed, so your comments on the AFD while worthwhile, were slightly off-the-point. --Pajnax 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US an adjunct professor is usually one who is hired on a class by class basis, often a grad student, or someone with a master's or PhD who hasn't managed to get hired permanently anywhere. You are correct that an adjunct is not very high on the academic ladder. It is out of the ordinary to get 2 bachelor's degrees at the same school in different subjects, but not an extraordinary achievement; it just means that you have enough extra classes to fulfill the requirements for both. Some colleges offer special programs that deliberately lead to double degrees, usually involving taking heavier classloads and summer courses. --Brianyoumans 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is still online (Image:Naggtr.JPG), and as far as I can see was never deleted. Also, the bot can't delete images. It tags unused images to be deleted, which then are deleted by an admin after seven days if they are still unused. And I don't really understand what you mean by "So, that's at least five erroneous deletions." If you're refering to the comments on the bot's talk page, you sould note that all those were about image that really were unused at the time the bot tagged them (so no error by the bot there) and that none of the images were deleted. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is right here: Image:Naggtr.JPG. Here is a direct link to the image on Wiki's server. It also shows up in both articles. Maybe you need to refresh your cache. Also, Shweeny666 isn't the one who deleted the image, he's the one who uploaded it. See the image's log, which would also list the image's deletion had it been deleted. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the filename shows up in red because you forgot the "Image:" prefix. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that at the time the bot tagged the image, neither article was using it (Revision as of 01:22, October 11, 2006 of British National Party and Revision as of 23:26, September 30, 2006 of Mark Collett), so tagging it as unused was correct. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an ad blocker installed, that might be the problem since the image's url includes "/ad/". Try switching your ad blocker off. Either way, the image is definitely still there. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to your words as any civil servant doing his job is unless something really out of the ordinary is alleged, I would like to tell you one of my nominations for AFD was based on no significant achievement. I am actually relieved to know that it is probably not a gross mistake to have nominated that article and there are other editors who share my views.  Doctor Bruno  14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Anti-Semitic people seems to me to be superfluous for people in subcategories of Category:Neo-Nazism, Category:Nazism and certain (but not all) subcategories of Category:Fascism. In John Tyndall's case it is doubly unnecessary in that he is better known as a racist xenophobe than a Jew-hater, which is not to say that he wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite, only that it is unnecessary to categorise this. My intention is to reduce the anti-Semitic people category to a fraction of the current size per the complaints at WP:CFD that it is being misused (which it is). Unless someone is notable for being a Jew-hater, and not a Holocaust denier, a neo-Nazi, Nazi, Iron Guard member (cat missing), Arrow Cross member (cat missing), etc, I don't see any benefit in including them in this cat. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding the article on Mr Griffin, I would like to ask you to reread our policies on biographies of living persons. Also, consider which details are, or are not, strictly relevant.

Bear in mind I strongly disagree with Mr Griffin's opinions, and am in no way a supporter of his. DS 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, please note that use of the "LGBT" category tags is restricted to those individuals who have openly stated it about themselves. DS 20:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! While reviewing the assessment change log for Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports, I noticed that you created the article Béziers-Agde-Vias Airport. You contribution to improving Wikipedia's collection of airport articles is greatly appreciated. If at all interested, I'd like to extend an invitation to join the project. You can join by simply adding your name to the list of participants. If not interested, please disregard this message. Thanks! thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for e-mailing me the copy - it was a very interesting read. Sorry about not getting back sooner but I've been pretty snowed under with the work recently. Keresaspa 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I expect you'll agree with my additions. I'd like to be more helpful, english is not my native language; technical words are missing to me. I'll try to create some articles. There is such a work to do... Regards, M-le-mot-dit 22:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some more work for you! I'd like you to check the articles about Château de Castelnau-Bretenoux and Château de Falaise, as you have done for Blandy. Thanks for your modifications. M-le-mot-dit 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have more than one person eg two you have two people not two persons please give me a sentecne were the exclusive word the can be used is persons--Lucy-marie 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It looks like you copied and pasted Queribus to Château de Quéribus. Moving an article by copy and paste separates the article text from the edit history, which is important for the GNU Free Documentation License. You can move some pages yourself using the "move" tab above an article, and can also request moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If there are any other articles you may have copy/pasted, please consider listing them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Gimmetrow 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your involvement in the discussion of this article's deletion.

However, a new source has become available, as mentioned on the disscusion site, should you wish to reconsider. --Reverieuk 19:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your support. I want to do things properly so I'll keep asking if there are any tangible objections for a little while longer. In the end, though, I too fear it may be a case of 'the truth hurts'. --Robdurbar 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating both for deletion. I saw the articles created today and it was on my 'to do' list, but you beat me to it. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person who supports me is not a friend of mine just a random individual who has agreeded with me on some issues and yet again you are jumping to conclusions.--Lucy-marie 12:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we agreed to post no comments on this RfC I haven't and would like you to follow through on that part of the agrement. I will let this one slide if you post no more as i will post none at all if you post no further comments.--Lucy-marie 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, YOU said that, not me, but actually I had no intention of contributing further to the dicussion anyway. The point is, with the comments from Arthur Rubin in Talk:Person/RfC archive and the detailed posting of TStein in Talk:Person#When person (pl) is persons and when is it people there is no need - the issue is closed and TStein says as much. Both have clearly stated that the correct usage in the article is persons not people so it only remains to incorporate this. Emeraude 19:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notice on the talk page, id like to hear your input:) i basically propose before any major reversions can only be done after clear prior notification on the talk page (which i am still very very angry about right now...) anyway..hope to see your input sometime late:) many thanks Fethroesforia 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Steve, I award you the Photographer's Barnstar for all the spectacular images you have uploaded. Keep uploading spectacular images! Awarded by Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 13:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were your holidays fine? As we are both maintaining "parallel" lists of castles (User:Emeraude/Castles and User:M-le-mot-dit/draft), I think we shouldn't waste time and choose between these lists and the alphabetical list, or perhaps to create a new article such as "Castles in France by Region/Departement" and keep the old one (more work to keep them in coherence). — M-le-mot-dit 11:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well article on Château de Couffour. I am writer on fr: Macassar 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup. Je traduis des articles français pour faire en anglais une collection des châteaux français (c'est à dire, des châteaux forts - castles en anglais). L'article français au sujet de Couffour etant très court, j'ai écrit de nouveau. Vous pouvez l'utiliser pour l'article français si vous voulez. en:User:emeraude Emeraude 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'est un des tout premiers articles que j'avais créé et j'attendais un copyright du syndicat d'iniative, vous avez trouvé d'autres sources, bravo. Macassar 15:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I like the new article about the castle of Bellocq, I'll translate it in French when I have time. I was there just a month ago, but I couldn't make good pictures of it because of too many scaffoldings. You are right to place question marks after the château de Clisson, it must have no fan, nobody wrote about it. I'll go there when sunny days are back to make some pictures. As for the Château in Nantes, it is due to reopen this weekend after three or four years of work. It does look great now, I think the article on the French Wikipedia will improve a great deal on that occasion. I'll keep an eye on your list and will complete it when I have new information. I think the map of France with the relevant links is a great idea, I wish I were skilled enough to do the same on the French version of the article. Cheers. --Jibi44 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a new article could be a good idea? Philip Cross seems to be adding lots of coverage of the trial into the main article, and I can only imagine it getting longer and longer at the current rate of knots. You may find this funny as well, I can't imagine how that possibly confirms to the MOS at it makes no sense and doesn't even make it clear who is who. One Night In Hackney 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember he's put his hands up to one charge (possession of explosives) but he's going not guilty on the conspiracy charges. Regardless, I still think it would be better to create an article for him at some point rather than overburdening the party article.

You took the words right out of my mouth on the other issue, mainly because if I dared say them there would be reports about me on multiple help desks. I'm concentrating on other articles for a while, as "debating" (and I use that term loosely) with certain people seemingly incapable of logic and reason is incredibly frustrating. I still haven't got an answer to my oft asked question either.... One Night In Hackney 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think everyone else knows my question was rhetorical anyway, we all know the answer. I believe it's working out better this way as she's had ample chance to actually explain her actions and her refusal to offer any kind of mitigation reflects badly on her.

Reading through the Guardian article you may have a point, I'm surprised they couldn't get the name of the Anarchist Cookbook right though. One Night In Hackney

I forgot to mention this, which cleverly ignores this section. I wish people would stay away from subjects they clearly lack knowledge of.... One Night In Hackney 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you've opened up a can of worms on the G8 page now, obviously what an editor thinks must take precedence of course. My knowledge of the far right doesn't stretch back quite as far as yours sadly, and my area of study was quite different as well. Ten years of hands on lively political debate with them in towns and cities across the country is quite a learning experience, although I like to think I'm capable of maintaining NPOV. That's one of the reasons I'm not too keen on Searchlight, as firstly they decided to falsely claim several Class War members were actually fash, then there was the Loyalist parade (1992?) that Searchlight knew C18 were stewarding well in advance but didn't pass the information on to anyone of an active disposition, they just sent a couple of photographers down. One Night In Hackney 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unaware that your complaining about me behind my back will not solve any problems you have with me. You also make wild accusation about me being a know nothing and such. You also claim things to be a foregone conclusion. If you have a problem with me talk to me directly and back things up with evidence and when did I complain about you and get put down by another editor?--Lucy-marie 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your point 6 you have failied to read the name hackney as the person i said i reported . I have never reported you to the ANI.--23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

An aside i would like this yto stop this has become far too ugly and started with some harmless comments yonks back whihc were miss-interprited. Shall we stop attackikng each other and get on with actual editing of this encyclopedia. Also i still thing a break for all of us from The BNP page would be a good thing.--Lucy-marie 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on Lucy-marie's page: No, you're wrong again. You wrote on MY Talk page (and this is the second time I've copied it here - see above, and my page): "when did I complain about you and get put down by another editor?". No mention of Hackney. Just me. So my sixth point stands. Apology please. Emeraude 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue ranting as you will not recive a reply until you calm adown and stop trying to bully me (my opinion).--Lucy-marie 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what the discussion is complety about between you and Luck-marie. I however might reccomend cooling down a bit! Making demands etc etc is not the way to resolve issues. It will just cause them to escalate more. If you would like a neutral third party to help sort things out, I would be glad to assist. If there is anything else I can do to help resolve this, please let me know. Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually his edit was correct, and I've redone it. The manual of style says 1980's are incorrect, it should be 1980s. You might want to tone down your comments on his talk page a bit, he was acting correctly as it wasn't a controversial edit. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense, I was wondering how the removal of two apostrophes could be such a controversial edit?! One Night In Hackney 13:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figured he deserved (well, not really) a page after the humiliating European Courts loss, think it's worth mentioning in the BNP article? Oh naturally I listed him on my user page and have been very careful not to describe him as a racist, but sadly I think I've got the wikilink next to his name pointing to the wrong article. Shame on me! One Night In Hackney 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was getting round to links, just got a bit bogged down with other stuff. Will do some for ASLEF and the leader shortly. I was thinking about possible inclusion in this section, as it fits in reasonably well? One Night In Hackney 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The BBC was the only information I could find online yesterday, and that implied Lee took the case against ASLEF (or vice versa) and I didn't fancy trawling through vast amount of other sites to find any more information. I think a quick summary in ASLEF will probably be in order as well then. One Night In Hackney 23:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to bite my lip that many times this evening I'm about to pass out through blood loss. One Night In Hackney 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now stop beating the dead horse by trying to change the clear consensus (!) with all your facts please.... One Night In Hackney 12:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I was flying right now too but I have to work so I can have enough money to fly. lol. I see you are from Britian, what are the requirements there for getting a license? (I.E. how many hours, rough requirements etc)? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thanks for the info. By the way, are you part of the new wikiproject, WP:AVIATION? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is fairly similar to over here. I only need 40 but i do have to do a 150nm cross country. I am actually scheduled to a shorter 50 miles cross country solo this weekend. What type of plane do you generally fly? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that explains your name (I am guessing). All ive flown is a cessna 172 and a piper something (not to sure). Im looking forward to actually finishing. (Everybody I have talked to says make sure you get it, dont drop out or you will regret it later). So, im pushing for it! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I found, we can definitely trim the Robert Cottage information down now surely? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I only found it while looking at the contributions of one of the editors on the Paul Cromie AfD from ages ago. Which reminds me, I must add him bribing pensioners with £5 notes into the article rather than just having it as an external link. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Google search (UK only) for "Robert Cottage": Nothing up to date until the 43rd return which gives me this: "After deliberating for two days, the jury in the case of Robert Cottage and David Jackson failed to reach a verdict and was discharged by the judge Mr Justice Beatson. An application for a retrial will be made by the Crown Prosecution Service before a judge in Manchester next Wednesday (28 February 2007). Both men will remain in custody until that time." And that's from the Lancashire Police!!!! ([1])

Private Eye has had coverage of the £5 Cromie story over a few issues, including I think the current one. Emeraude 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where to answer you. The fact that Chenevix Trench was a POW of the Japanese you cannot dismiss so glibvly- the fact that he survived is an accomplishment on its own. ( I had 2 uncles who suffered similarly and they had a lifelong hatred of the Japs) If all the prisoners had died there would be no evidence but those that did survive were all affected in different ways and perhaps his mistreatmkent does go some way to explaining his later behaviour as a school master. I do not accept, at all ,your casual dismissal of the behavior o9f the Japaneses as though not very much happened and it was normal. I will try and start an article - if you enter this subject onto google there are endless articles so there should be no problem. At the moment you just appear to be to be being ignorant. If you answer this you might tell me where these linmes should have been entered. Unsigned posting 16:47, 12 March 2007 by User:Noremacnomis, moved here from my User Page

Thanks for the book list, its a case of finding relevent quotes, but yes..many of the thicker books are very tedious to get through. I agree onthe point though, the russians treated privates like dispensable animals. however, many of the best russian maneauvers, however chaotic, suicidal and bloody were successful (always forget his name, the russian general who encircled the sixth army). I do find Hitler an interesting person to study though, andalso the last few days of the bunker and the chaos of leadership. Seeing as im still awaiting conditional acceptence (or rejection..which ive notgot yet luckily) may i ask what you studied at university? As you know MUCH more than anyone else about politics in general,especially the extremities of left and right. Fethroesforia 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I sort of figured you studied education or something related. I do have a wiki related question. I would dearly like to become an admin on the english wikipedia, is this rather impossible? Is there any way i can improve chances or how would I apply? Ive been on herenot that long I know, but I feel at least some of my input has been useful. But I cant help feeling that whoeverdecides admins would be largely put off by my political party thing....Anyhelpwill be very gratefully received:) Fethroesforia 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steve. Yes, I noticed what looked like a typo on your most excellent translation of the article on Didier Daurat. Additionally, in following the link to Big Bertha it appeared that at some point the misidentification of the Paris Gun as Big Bertha had crept in. You are right that there is an inconsistancy in that the article on Daurat says he saw the gun, and the article on the gun says it was never found. However, it did seem clear that Big Bertha was not used on Paris. I figured that I might as well edit, as you could always change it back if you thought that best. Thanks for your kind comments. James52 03:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i made that edit summary before i checked the talk page. i understand your explanation...it's just that we are going to disagree on this one. i accept overthrowing home rule as nationalism. i think your definition is a bit narrower. we both have different thoughts on this subject, so no hard feelings. i took it to the talk page because i had no plans to re-revert. you did provide discussion when you removed the image, and that is basically what i was looking for. the_undertow ^talk 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i gotta hand it to you, that is one compelling piece of literature over on my talk page. yes, the picture is excellent. nationalism? i dont know anything anymore. the_undertow ^talk 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message about dependant being acceptable in British English, can you point me to a place that documents that? I will bring that to the WP:AWB folks to remove it from the auto-spelling-correction list. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Without wishing to get involved as I find my time is spent more productively elsewhere, one thing I've noticed regarding the infobox of a certain politicial party is the introduction of the term "green" based on their manifesto. In my opinion this shouldn't be allowed to stand, otherwise if they chose to say they were "anti racist" this could go in the infobox as well? Surely the threshold must be that other sources have described them as "green", not how they describe themselves? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you took my advice. I think that edit is somewhat dubious as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's seems to be no reason why Category:Castles in France could not be recreated, to hold real castles, and only real castles. I do not understand the CFD discussion to preclude this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Angus McLellan's analysis. I think my only contribution to this was to enact the decision of the Category discussion in line with its closure; I don't have any particular view on the issue, but if you do get problems with people claiming recreation of deleted category, then you may wish to drop by Deletion review where these things are discussed. Also, a small technical hint: if you link a category [[Category:Foo]], then it does not show but does put the talk page in the category. What you need to do is place a colon inside the brackets: [[:Category:Foo]]. This appears as Category:Foo. Sam Blacketer 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not advise recreating it as "castles", on the whole. The ambiguities around castle/chateau are too well known. I think castle should be "fortified chateau" in most contexts on WP, so the List should go to this title, and a Category:Fortified French chateaux created which is a sub-cat of Castles by country, & of Chateaux of France. Johnbod 13:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I abstained on the discussion - my sole contribution to the debate was to comment that the correct plural of château is châteaux, and not châteaus. If you wish to overturn the decision, then you are welcome to bring it up at Deletion Review. However, feel free wish to create a category structure such as the above-mentioned Category:Fortified French châteaux, to hold "real" castles, as opposed to buildings that would be called "manor houses" or "stately homes", were they in Britain. Bluap 14:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Angusmclellan, User:Cool Cat, User:Jamie Mercer, User:Bluap, User:Postlebury, User:LukeHoC, User:Johnbod, User:Sam Blacketer

I'm writing to you because you contributed to the discussion on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, or redirected articles in that category. This decision, as I hope to show, was wrong and needs to be reversed. Please take the time to read the following and respond.

Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)

My reasons for questioning the decision are:

1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.

2. Similarly, no mention was made on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles page.

It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.

3. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.

4. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.

5. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France ([original]). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).

6. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!

7. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace.

I would be interested in your comments, particularly on how to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. Emeraude 10:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be renamed back. I would recommend summarizing your argument before starting a {{cfr}}. -- Cat ^chi? 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed at DRV. Just needed to go after the comment marker thing. The template doesn't work perfectly anyway, but no worries. All ok now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulation for your new Barnstar! You have spent so many time haunting french castles!

About Château de Brie-Comte-Robert, the french article was obviouly translated by a computer without verification. The same person had translated "religieuses" (for nuns) by "chocolate éclairs"! The French article is a copy of the site Les Amis du Vieux-Château, however an authorization has been given to Wipipedia (see fr:Talk:Château de Brie-Comte-Robert). I think we can also translate the "Architecture" page. Some animations of this site are interesting to understand the castle. Thank you for enhancing this article. — M-le-mot-dit (d) 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. If the issue is just moving all the articles in one category to a new category, then AWB does that very simply. If the decision is to reverse the merger, then it is more difficult but still possible: If you follow this link you will see all the changes made. Copying the text of the page, stripping out all the extraneous detail other than the names of the pages which were changed, will give a list which can be pasted into AWB. Then set AWB to replace Category:Châteaux in France with the name of the newly demerged category. Sam Blacketer 12:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't agree with your statements about English usage: most English people and books call Versailles a palace. Just about every English school-kid knows that in a French town, the castle will be signposted "Au Chateau". As you ought to know better than most any dividing line is in any case much less clear than in England - fortification continued later, and many more French castles have their original roof-line etc, which I think for many people is a factor in how they think of the buildings. There will be no difficulty finding the French ones in the category; if you massage the code it will appear in the correct place in the "castles in " sequence. Johnbod 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new name will appear in the "Castles in ..." category & it is possible to make it appear where "Castles in France" would appear. I'm not very good on these sort-codes myself, but many people know how to do this. Johnbod 16:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to post that on my talk page? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well personally I'd have left it in there, but the editor before me was quite insistent that he doesn't go in there yet so I'm happy to follow his lead. I can imagine this going on for quite a while yet (how long till it's official?) so you might want to keep an eye on it as well, due to the dreaded three revert rule. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean-up on this page. I have un-italicised the song titles again in line with Wiki music guidelines. InternationalHit2 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, I agree! But I think we're in the minority. InternationalHit2 22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling the BNP article. 86.146.242.233 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve; your comment noted, as is the one above here. I am working on it.--Anthony.bradbury 19:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is blocked.--Anthony.bradbury 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emeraud: You have recently been reported for a 3RR vio on British National Party. Having looked at it, I'm finding a total of six reverts within 24 hours. I want to clarify a couple things for you. First, you justified your fourth revert as reverting a banned user: this appears not have been the case. The user was only blocked for a username violation, and autoblock was disabled specifically to allow the user to make a new account. Secondly, you seem to have justified your later reverts as reverts of a 3RR violation. This is not an exception to 3RR: even if another user has violated the rule, reverting that user still counts toward 3RR. I haven't blocked you, but I will have to should you continue to edit war. If I'm mistaken as to why you think your reverts were justified, you can let me know here. Thanks, have a good day. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP, just trying to clean things - basically, if it's so disputed you need references in an info box (they don't belong there neither, IMO)...--Red Deathy 16:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather stay largely clear to be honest, as without naming any names there's a good chance of me seeing dubious edits from another editor and getting dragged back into it all. My time has been spent far more productively since disengaging, and I'm keen for that to continue. That said, I added the cite for "openly Nazi party... whose leadership have serious criminal convictions" which was easy enough to find. I'll have a look at the article from time to time, but I can't pronise anything more. Besides I'm still recovering after the monster party we had to celebrate David Lane dying.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a case of busy, just as you know it takes weeks and weeks of banging your head against a brick wall to get anything done with the article. I'd rather spend my time doing something sligtly more constructive than argue with an editor who claims to be capable of editing a complex article about a political party yet can't even spell basic words correctly. Keeping an eye out though. Was there any chance of David Lane ever serving his full term anyway?! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on last night's events, I'll be keeping a close eye on things. I can't imagine it lasting much longer at the current rate of knots, so it'll only be a temporary return hopefully. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{mainarticle|Quisling}} may have been what you were looking for, keeps everything in a standard format across articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote You may be right, but anyone who owns a home has the wherewithal to pay damages. There is no evidence that I am aware of that, as you say, the vast majority of uninsured drivers don't have the money to pay for damages. Perhaps you have some statistics on this.

I do not understand what you mean by anyone who owns a home has the wherewithal to pay damages. Can you please explain what you mean?

Hi there, just a quick comment on a (well-deserved) nomination you brought to AfD for the Power Vector article. The original contributor was not notified of the deletion on their talk page, using this template here {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} -- ~~~~. I've put it on their page. If I may suggest, automated scripts like WP:TWINKLE take all the hard work out of setting up AfDs (in addition to making reverting vandalism a breeze!) with a click of a button you can nominate the article, create the discussion page, and notify the page creator. Thanks for your contributions, looking forward to seeing you around more at AfD! All the best, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion, notifying the page creator is the third and final step for nominating AfDs. However, with TWINKLE it won't even be an issue anymore! And to go along with it, may I also recommend using Lupin's AntiVandal tool for patrolling recent changes... combined with TWINKLE, they're an unbeatable team. I hope you enjoy the new tools! :) Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could point out how the castles in Boulogne and in Fère-en-Tardenois are so similar, given that the latter has a keep and Boulogne does not. Emeraude 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL. Look at the linked photo I put on the talk page. Fere has no keep. The castles are contemporary, both even built by members of the same royal court, both rely on the strength of the enceinte, instead of a keep. Bologne has 10 towers 2 gates, Fere has 9 towers 1 gate, and the gate is characteristic of the Champagne region. Both are oblong and irregular. I think perhaps you need to look at the definition for keep. If you can't see that Fere has no keep, then you'd best not be editing any castle pages. Btw there are tons of other examples of castles with no keep, Yevre, Bastille.... CJ DUB 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your tone unnecessarily harsh and not what should be expected of a Wikipedian. I refer you to the link that you yourself placed on the Boulogne Castle page to the French wiki article fr:Fère-en-Tardenois where it clearly states "le donjon est un heptagone irrégulier flanqué de sept tours circulaires" (the KEEP is an irregular heptagon flanked by seven circular towers). I would suggest that if you cannot read French, you refrain from editing any pages to do with the country! Besides, looking at the picture, it is quite clear that Fère-en-Tardenois is built on a mound (unlike Boulogne) and is a stand alone castle (unlike Boulogne, which is contained within the town walls of Boulogne). I aked for architectural similarities - the number of towers does not do it. The use of the same builders is interesting (references?), but there wasn't exactly a large pool of castle builders was there? If you know as much about this castle as you claim beyond having located an interesting photo, why not write an article on it for English Wiki? So far, you have not upheld your claim that it has any similarity with Boulogne other than timescale and builders. Emeraude 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That page has donjon but its an obvious mistake made by a moron. Come on, there is other infos on the page that are wrong/poorly written. wiki ref, how hilarious. I speak/read french just fine. The Mesqui, 1997 ref is a french book. Sometimes french people call the whole castle a DONJON when it is not. Lemme give you another example. Tower of London: Is it a tower? Of course not! It has many towers but has been named that way after the original tower of the 1000s. Comprendez? Its just a name. You haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about in either respect Bolougne or Fere. Bolougne is located inside the town? Wow, how very unique!! I've been to Fere by the way, (and all over the French north): it is a castle, even though it is on a motte. On the large motte is the inner ward, which is not covered by roofs, there was a lower ward where the hotel is. There are in fact many extremely large and complex REAL donjons on top of mottes, Stafford Castle, Warkworth Castle, etc, but they are all very compact and roofed. This is not like that in the slightest. The only unroofed motte keeps are shell keeps of the 1000-1100s. Fere is a classic castle of enceinte of the 1200s. My Mesqui book calls the structure on the motte an "enceinte castrale", and states the original castle was there. Here are some other keepless ones: Mont Saint Jean, Montaiguillon, Moulineaux CJ DUB 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I speak/read french just fine." Shame your English lets you down! Not to mention the way you think that debate has to involve insulting everyone. Firstly, it is not an obvious mistake. The picture you linked clearly shows what appears the remains of a keep. I confess I have not visited Fere, but the picture does seem to be ACCURATELY described in the French wiki article. Do not presume to lecture me on nomenclature. Of course the Toewer of London is not A tower, anymore than Balmoral Castle is a castle or Crystal Place was ever a palace. And of course Fere is a castle - I never questioned that. Incidentally, you might want to find a translation of 'castrale'. The important points are these: (1) How are Boulogne and Fere so similar that you have edited Boulogne to state so. They do not look similar, they have separate functions. (2) If they have the same builders, that is worth mentioning - please do say and name them with references. (3) Is the tower described as a keep at Fere a keep? (Or rather, was it when built. I can list dozens of French castles that do not have keep today because it has fallen down over the years - I was at Clermont l'Herault this week and you can't see a keep, but it had one!) I challenged you to write an English article on Fere and woild welcome this, but I suspect that your task is mor eto accuse editors in French and English of moronity, so I won't hold my breath. Meanwhile, I am reinstateing the 'sourced description of Boulogne from the Boulogne Museums service which you castigated as 'fancruft' Emeraude 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Get back to me when you have two references that state that there is a keep at Fere. Make sure they are peer reviewed references, which is what counts in the real world, rather than a town website or a french annonymous editor. After that, feel free to change the article anyway you like. I have two references that state they are similar structures built around the same time.

• 1) Both castles are uniform archetypical scientific constructions of the early 1200s and rely principally on the defences of the curtain wall and a moat. Both are clear phillipien derivatives. Each has no keep, i.e. a dominant tower of unique character used as a redoubt or residence. Each has cylindrical towers of the same size and character. Both are the approximately the same size. Differences: Boul has slightly more towers and two gates. Fere has only one gate and it is a Champagnois type gate. Fere was built on a high motte, with a moat at the bottom, Boul was built on flat land with moat around.
• 2) Boulogne was of course built by Philippe Hurepel and Fere was built by the Counts of Dreux, both in the court of Philip II Augustus. Philippe Hurepel was the son of Philip II.
• 3) Mesqui (1997), states that Boulogne is one archetype of the group of keepless castles ("chateaux sans donjon") of the 1230s, reflected in specifically "Fere-en-Tardenois et Angers", page 70. Salch states that Fere-en-Tardenois, built in 1206, is the first keepless castle known in France. By the way have a look at Chateau Hardelot, you'll find its an almost exact copy of "unique" Boulogne right in the Pas-de-Calais built by Philippe Hurepel as well:

Chateau de Hardelot

My refs:

• Salch, Charles-Laurent (1979). Dictionnaire des châteaux et des fortifications du moyen âge en France. Strasbourg: Publitotal. pp. 1287 pp. ISBN 2865350703. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Mesqui, Jean (1997). Chateaux-forts et fortifications en France. Paris: Flammarion. pp. 493 pp. ISBN 2080122711. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Both are highly respected researchers, and Mesqui is a expert on castles of Picardy-Cchampagne.

• Aerial Views:

Boulogne Aerial View
Fere Aerial View

• Plans:

Plan of Boulogne
Plan of Fere

• Plan of Fere before its destruction:

Fere in 1700

Note the COMPLETE LACK OF KEEP on both

CJ DUB 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Odaballoon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Whispering 17:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to abusive sockpuppetry it's up to its old tricks on {{G8 nations‎}} and G8, and all the G8 summit articles such as 3rd G7 summit etc etc. I won't be around much longer, so keep an eye on its antics please. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refute these allegations made by ONIH i am not an "abusive sockpuppeteer". I am willing to take part in debates on the issue at hand and have been bold in making most of my edits to the G8 pages. I have started a debate on the template talk page but ONIH is either unkowing of it or unwilling to take part. I would like to talk to people rather than engage in slanging matches and would liek to place all our past histories behind and start again and keep debates non-personal and on the issues. I would like to apologies for previous actions if we can all move and be civilised, and conduct debates in non personal ways etc etc.--Lucy-marie 15:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to use words like "refute", please make sure you know what they mean first. You haven't "refuted" anything. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop patronisiing me. I shall use any words I like. Also why is the only way to communicate with you on someone else's talk page?--Lucy-marie 16:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use any words you like (and it also helps if you can spell them correctly), but you're still using them incorrectly. You are not welcome to post on my talk page, for various reasons too lengthy to divulge. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we seem to have all the space in the world here be as elaborate as you like.--Lucy-marie 22:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered by civil not criminal law, so it's not illegal. Rapido 08:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for that information, but I'm afraid Energy broadcast from the Republic of Ireland and as such is not subject to UK legislation. Rapido 16:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it's certainly not the same as in the UK - the Republic of Ireland is well known for traditionally lenient legislation against unlicenced radio so dozens of stations in Dublin and high powered stations beaming into the UK were common until a couple of years ago. There is no uniform legislation in Europe, I am not sure where you got that idea from. A station in the Netherlands may have his transmitter smashed up on site rather than taken away, and receive upto tens of thousands of pounds in fines. In Belgium, they will probably just take away the transmitter. Of course enforcement in any of these countries is another issue. Rapido 09:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour and welcome to the first WikiProject France newsletter!! It should become a monthly special of our project, but until the next issue, here are some points to consider for the month:

• In an effort to determine the active members from the inactive, all members are asked to simply sign on my special userpage.
• I have slightly rearranged and updated the Project page, putting all the featured lists in collapsible tables. This unclutteres the page and you only have to see them if you want to. Give your feelings at the talk page.
• I have made a Wikipedia advert for our project, Image:Qxz-ad108.gif, what do you think? Personally I feel the words need improving ...
• There are still map problems at Template:French commune - any help at resolving them would be greatly appreciated.
• What about starting a monthly drive? We currently have no Featured Portals (except for the Basque Portal which really isn't French any way), so how about improving Portal:France??? I don't know what's exactly wrong but the criteria can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria.

It doesn't seem like a lot, so I hope we will still have enough problems for nexts months issue. Salut till the next issue, ChrisDHDR (17:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Please see the discussion page of the above, I would welcome your contribution to the changes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.137.129 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that revert on Nick Griffin. I thought I had undone that vandalism. I didn't mean for that to stay and I wasn't suggesting that he was charged for public homosexuality. If you look at the history for BNP and NG you will see that I have been helpful in undoing vandalism, not creating it! :) Sorry about that mixup! JRDarby 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. :) I did not consider any of his past activities whatsoever when removing the comment. It was made by an anonymous user without any talk page discussion so I simply reverted it. Whether or not it should go back is another matter, I think. Personally I would say to leave it off for now because he has, for all he has said in the past, been vocally and practically against his past anti-Semitism (or so I see it with his repudiation of his past behavior and adding a Jewish councilor). I don't know whether or not he has really changed, if you know what I mean, but he has done well enough recently, I think. If we want to include anti-Semitism to mean anti-Arab (which anti-Islam--a major focus of his very obviously--is not since not all Muslims are Arab), then that counts. I dunno; I'd say it's something for the talk page but my vote would be for leaving it off 1) because I don't think there's enough recent evidence of it and 2) it will just cause problems--not that I'm afraid of problems if I'm convinced it's true, you know? :) Sorry, thoughts a bit jumbled tonight, I'm trying though. JRDarby (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think categories are anything like as important as what appears in the article" I agree 100%. I see what you mean about past affiliations carrying over too. I suppose that since people don't usually even see the category labels it wouldn't be too big of a deal to put the antisemitism category on there too--especially since they will read the article and be able to decide for themselves whether or not he is antisemitic now. Cheers! JRDarby (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been one high aiming month! The French WikiProject and related pages have been aiming high for Christmas - and have received an equal number of presents in return!

• The French Portal is now a Featured Portal!!! It passed its Candidacy with 100%. Special thanks go to NYArtsnWords and all those that have made this Portal work.
• The Newsletter has made it to a second issue. You can find its page at WikiProject France/Outreach/Newsletter and its archives at WikiProject France/Outreach/Newsletter/Archives.
• A new page has been setup (WikiProject France/Links) to provide an index of the Projects/Portals pages (as well as helping newbees). When creating any pages in the Project/Portal namespace, please add them to the index page. This page also give WP:FRANCE members a handy watchlist.
• As like last time, members are asked to renew their memberships at Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Members.
• I will be on holiday when the next issue is meant to come out so could some generous person(s) please do the next issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Outreach/Newsletter.

Well, that's this issue. Au revoir et à bientôt till the next time, ChrisDHDR (18:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Although admitingly the article is not that important, and it may have funny references, but Tim is a good guy that is moving up in this field and people are always asking about his background so i posted it somewhat with jokes but also with information, please do not delete it. Thanks

Ref:West Runton war Memorial.

• I added the article to the West Runton article after the proposed Deletion to save the opening indroduction, I have not copied anyones work other than my own!. Please check the History of both pages and you will then have the right information, before you make accusations of Plagiarism Stavros1 (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change "strongly criticised" to just "criticised". "Strongly" is inherently POV, as it means anything depending on who's saying it. Enjoy the holidays! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tell me what you think steve =)Sinthesizer (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14-Jan-2008: I saw the attempted AfD for "List of asteroids/1-100" which you realized was a doomed approach. Can we request a merge of the top 172,100 asteroids as just 173 articles, leaving the bottom thousand as ten lists of 100 asteroids each. There is a duplication problem because, currently, each list of 1000 asteroids transcludes the 10 sub-articles of 100, such as:

• List of asteroids/172001–173000 - transcludes 10 sub-articles.

From what I've seen of overlinking, the Wikipedia page-link databases must double-link all internal wikilinks to the 11 pages, linking "What links here" to each of the 10 sub-pages of 100 asteroids, then linking all again to the overall page of 1000 asteroids in that same numeric range: the effect generates 173,000 * 3 wikilinks per asteroid * 2 sets of repetition = twice massive (1,380,000), or over 10 million wikilinks, rather than 519,000 wikilinks to date/name each asteroid. A detailed proposal:

• Combine all higher lists of 100 asteroids to become each article now listing 1,000: thereby "List of asteroids/1001–2000" would contain the actual data of the 2nd thousand asteroids, rather than the current transclusions of 10 sub-pages which double the total wikilinks.
• Consider unlinking the date/year in the upper 172,100 asteroids to reduce total wikilinks by 344,200 date/year links.
• Leave the first 1,000 asteroids as the standardized 10 lists of 100 each, with transcluding only those 10 pages into the first list of 1000 asteroids. All other asteroids would be merged into just 173 other pages, listing 1,000 each (116 asteroids on the ending page).
• Leave date/year links on the first 1,000 asteroids (generating only 2,000 date+year links).
• After merging, delete the higher 1722 articles of 100 asteroids (each): the current structure is 1732 hundred-group articles + 174 thousand-group articles + redirection pages = 1906+ current pages.

Some users have requested support for date-format preferences; however, I feel that is too expensive for Wikipedia to index those 344,000 higher-asteroid date/year wikilinks just to select the date-format.

Remember if the "sum of all knowledge" in the English Wikipedia were divided into 1001 parts, then 2 parts (transcluded) would be asteroid numbers+dates, rather more than all people notable enough to have been knighted in England, centuries before those asteroids were discovered. Things to ponder. (I will check here for a reply). Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some amazing maths that I'm stil trying to take in! I'd not even considered the links issue. I would be happy to support what you propose. How to go about it? Emeraude (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To achieve a major improvement, it will take support, to reach a significant concensus: such support is best achieved by contacting some people, one by one, such as those who rejected the AfD but commented that "something needs to be done" to reduce the 1900 articles. Technically, a merge is posted on a talk page, not treated as an AfD. As you realized from targeting the asteroids 1-100, there was tremendous opposition to change, regardless of the notability issue: they've been adding those 1,906 articles for 3 years. The solution might take 6 months to implement, but first we need support from people who agree to merge the articles. Since you're interesting in politics, you can appreciate how many "revolutions" are achieved in so-called "smoke-filled rooms" not in open debates where egos are challenged. For editing help, the WikiProject for Cleanup might enjoy the effort to combine files, replacing the higher 173 thousand-asteroid articles, thereby unlinking 700,000 wikilinks and completely deleting 1721 files: a real clean-up operation. So, I guess:

- Step 1: contact friends who might vote "merge" to combine the files;

- Step 2: contact users who discussed a merge during the AfD to see if they would support a merge, as long as others help with editing of the 1906 files.

Once the overall support has been measured, then we can post a merge-tag onto the talk-page for article "List_of_asteroids/1001–1100 (the first article to be merged into "List of asteroids/1001–2000"). Then alert others to post their support on that talk-page. Per Wikipedia regulations, any support must be freely granted, without an aura of coercing people to help: only enthusiastic people should be contacted for further help. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You were right about the math: the corrected figure is 1 million current wikilinks, not 10 million (I put a strike-out, above, for "10"). The extra duplicate links are 516,300 (not 5 million) to be avoided by not (twice) transcluding those 172,100 asteroids with 3 wikilinks each: 172,100 * 3 = 516,000 links avoided. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is going to be a massive editing job to get these articles merged and not one that I have the time for, assuming that agreement can be reached to do so. It might be an idea to recruit, sooner rather than later, an editor or team of editors who are willing to take this on and suggest a strategy for achieving it. Can I ask that you contact those who offered support in the AfD, since I am literally off to the airport when I finish this sentence and will be away from Wikipedia for the rest of January. Emeraude (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make further edits on the BNP page and please refrain from inserting OR in the article. And before editing PLEASE consult the talk page. I didn't remove the fascism part, but it was removed due to BLP violation. If you reinsert it, you run the risk of being blocked indefinitely. That's why I don't touch the infobox. Dylansmrjones (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 You have NO right to tell me not make no further edits on the BNP page or any other page.

2 You accuse me of inserting OR into the article - where?

3 I did consult the talk page (and if you had bothered to consult you would see that I left a lengthy message there).

4 I never said you did remove the fascism part.

5 The BLP reason is a pure sham, as I made clear in the talk page which you have accused me of not consulting.

6 To threaten me with indefinite blocking is (a) not your job and (b) extremely unlikely given the consensus that has built up on the article.

7 What the hell has "I don't touch the infobox" got to do with anything? Emeraude (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 Of course I have the right to say that. You also have the right to disregard it. But considering the lack of consensus, it would be impolite of you.

2 You are deliberately posting your own interpretion of reference no. 11. You are quoting a source for a statement that isn't in the source.

3 You hadn't written that message until AFTER I had reverted your OR-edit and written in your discussion page. We just crossed each other in time. Shit happens.

4 I never claimed you claimed that ;) - I merely wrote it so you would understand it in the context of the following sentence.

5 It is not a sham, and you haven't proved it. You have only claimed that scholarly POVs qualify as evidence, even though it is factually incorrect. Add to that the complete lack of sources supporting your claim of 'evidence'.

6 I'm not the one to threaten you. I'm merely warning you that the rest of us have been threatened by indefinite blocking if we reinserted fascism in the infobox, as you did. The 'threat' came from the user Tyrenius. So you are attacking the wrong guy. In regard to consensus there is no consensus at the moment, except that there is no consensus and that the article needs to be completely rewritten. Your so-called consensus does not exist as is evident from the talk page.

7 Touching the infobox is related to the alleged violation of WP:BLP. We've been warned not to reinsert claims of fascism. You may want to reinsert it, but I'm not running that risk - yet. Dylansmrjones (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it seems reasonable to re-insert the statement about BNP asserting racial influences in behaviour with a quote from their 2005 manifesto, then I'm willing to make the edit and take the blame for it. I also noted the 2007 manifesto doesn't say anything about invalidating the 2005 manifesto so I've concluded I cannot safely assume it overrides the older manifesto. Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I note that you are going through various football articles changing from plural to singular, with the edit summary "A club is singular". Before you go too far, I think you should be aware that this subject has come up many times before; for example, see here and here. The subject has also been discussed at WP:FOOTBALL here. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget you can use [2] to find old copies of pages, including PDF files if you're lucky. I updated a dead link to [3], not sure if there's any more to update in the article though. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I wasn't aware of it. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However surely if "they are accused of being on the extreme right Nazi wing", that is far left of Nick Griffin? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tee hee. Emeraude (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tee hee" faggots. 204.94.149.2 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (Public computer)[reply]

The date syntax is: {{Cleanup|any other arguments|date=February 2008}}, but if you leave the date off it will be added by a WP:BOT. Rich Farmbrough, 01:29 18 February 2008 (GMT).

My message is what the title said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwenton (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZOG police? I'd like to complain about harassment please! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rofl, ONIH. (sorry, Emeraude, couldn't resist the laugh) JRDarby (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You used the term ZOG? Why does the left hate Jews, yet they love Muslims? The fact that you believe in a phoney Zionist Occupied Government and you believe they have secret police is very sad. Talk to a Jew. I have a cousin and some inlaws that are Jewish and they rock. (PS are you pro-terrorist Palestinian!? You seem so, you anti-semetic leftists!)Qwenton (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, why did the mad left allow mudslims to make death threats against non-Mudslims, yet in the third world Muslim world they have tons of anti-Jewish cartoons, and the U.N., EU, or any other lunatic leftists have nothing to say? Doulbethink at its finest point!Qwenton (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to inform you that I am not an admin and so cannot delete the page, but I have listed it at AfD for you. I do hope he will have learned his lesson after his block expires. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't unblock Qwenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), I issued a standard 24hr block which expired in due course. I noticed his subsequent comment though. Should that sort of language continue then he will likely be blocked again for a longer period. Rockpocket 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your COI comments are not correct. The article was not written by Harry T. Mangurian, Jr., but was a collaborative effort of several individuals who have known him for in excess of thirty years. The fact that it was supplied to Wikipedia from a computer in his office does not mean that he was the author, as your editor concluded. Further, there are no misstatements in the data, all of which can be supported by the indicated references, and they certainly were not intended to be, to any reader, so "hagiographic" as to be "nauseous". We are not certain as to which comments trigger the reviewer's statements, and would welcome any suggestions in wording which do not diminish the subject's achievements, and which would remove the COI comments at the head of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htmjrinc (talk • contribs) 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the page Harry T. Mangurian, Jr. as COI and supplied the following comment on the talk page: "I have tagged this page as having conflict of interest issues, what we used to call vanity. The original editor on 7 September 2007 was one Htmjrinc which has to be Harry T Mangurian Jr. This is the only article he has written or worked on and it is so hagiographic as to be nauseous." (16:29, 20 February 2008). OK, so it was a bunch of people in his office - still a COI concern. I did not suggest there were any misstatements in the article. As for the indicated references, I copy them here in full as they appear in the article:

1. Mangurian’s, Inc./General Portland Merger – 1971 Newspaper Articles 2. Boston Celtics Media Guides – 1980-1983 3. Memphis Rogues Media Guide – 1978 4. Thoroughbred Owners’ and Breeders’ Association – Archival data 5. www.harrytmangurianjr.com 6. www.ntra.com/stats_bios

The first four are vague and not usable references. The fifth is the ugly website of the company (i.e. not independent, not verifiable, COI again) and the sixth is a dead link. I stand by my original staements: there are COI concerns and (it's a personal thing) it reads like nauseous hagiography. Emeraude (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI any chance you could use your great translation skills and help expand some of the commune stubs on here? E.g Communes of the Yvelines department? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly glad you noticed, its shocking the state on them at present. Hope you won't let the fact that the vast majority of them are sub-standard put you off from at least expanding one or two of them along with the chateaus! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only we could have a thousand editors like you to translate from french!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a category for chateaus or castles in france or something? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thats insanely ridiciulous. What kind of numbskull thought of that???? It never ceases to amaze me what happends on here. A fortified what??? So you're saying that castles have been merged into the one. Cringe cringe. I've always thought of a chateau as a stately home or rather more a palace rather than a formal castle or something. I can't believe it was moved without consulting the projects. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. Clearly you know about the castle/chateau thing as much as anybody on wikipedia given your substantial work in this area. I would urge that it is brought up at categories for discussion and differentiated.Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude:

We have reviewed your response to our concerns regarding your initial COI comments. Again, we are not certain which statements within the Harry T. Mangurian, Jr. Wikipedia page trigger your comments. We would welcome any suggestions in wording which do not diminish Mr. Mangurian's achievements AND which would remove the COI comments at the head of the article and reduce its "nauseously hagiographic" nature .

Your attention to this correspondence is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Stephen G. Mehallis, Beth P. Piana, and Gordon W. Latz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htmjrinc (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to request a review of your decision to delete the Harry T. Mangurian, Jr. page from Wikipedia.

For your review, we wish to supply the following alternate references to that page:

1. Mangurian's, Inc. / General Portland merger - 1971 Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

2. Boston Celtics / Wikipedia. (I would draw to your attention that the data shown here, while including Harry Mangurian as a co-owner with John Brown, does not accurately reflect his sole ownership, in 1979 through 1984).

3. Memphis Rogues / Wikipedia, (While the dates are accurate, Beau Rogers was never a co-owner of the Memphis Rogues and Harry Mangurian never owned a race track in Florida).

4. Use: NTRA.com/stats/bios/harrytmangurianjr as the reference for items 4 and 6 in the article.

5. Use: bloodhorse.com/eclipseawardwinners/2002.

If you still decide to delete his bio, we would appreciate suggestions on how to construct a bio that would be acceptable to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Stephen G. Mehallis, Gordon W. Latz, and Beth P.Piana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htmjrinc (talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "We would like to request a review of your decision to delete.." But I neither deleted it (I'm not an administrator) nor nominated it for deletion! Emeraude (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information the deletion log for the page says:

29 March 2008 03:19 Spellcast (Talk | contribs) deleted "Harry T. Mangurian, Jr." ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: This is pure vanity).

I concur. Emeraude (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the question is, are there objective guidlines. For some subjects this is easy: noble prize winners, Ph.D granting institutions, etc. For other subjects, day middle school, notability is not so clear cut. I have looked, and have not found the page that spells out the consensus on what notable is. perhpas that would be a good project.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me some advice on what, if anything to do about gcripus, who is a vandal on day middle school (eg, his edits are non sourced comments about a living person ) thanks Cinnamon colbert (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution. -:)) I actually think that both names are female, but the problem is a bigger one: Wikipedia does not seem to have a policy on foreign names. Some are left in their original language while others are anglisized. The result is one big confusion. I prefer the original names, whenever possible. I will therefore rely on your input, once I get around of writing her article. Thanks again

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It would help me if you could have a look to this traduction of fr:Château de Fontenoy-le-Château in my user page Château de Fontenoy-le-Château. Best regards — M-le-mot-dit (T) 17:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your improvements. Did you had time to visit some castles during your travel? — M-le-mot-dit (T) 17:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for helping removing the generic quote put up by 190.226.113.239 in the Nate Archibald article. May you please continue helping me remove the quotes from the other characters, Serena van der Woodsen, Blair Waldorf, Jenny Humphrey, Dan Humphrey, Vanessa Abrams, Chuck Bass as well as Nate Archibald. It seems as though I keep removing these quotes, the user keeps adding it back on.

Or perhaps you can send them a note? Help would be greatly appreciated.

--McSteamy (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which name is more common name, Kemano Dam or Kenney Dam? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article states "The Kenney Dam (or Kemano 1)" - why it is called "Kemano 1"? Are there Kemano 2, Kemano 3 etc.? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments at this AfD, the guideline you are looking for is WP:ATHLETE ("Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league"). Unfortunately WP:FOOTYN is irrelevant as it has not been accepted by the wider community. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that clears it up. Emeraude (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not at all rubbish (that was you, beeing unpolite) ... see Talk:Autoroutes of France -- 79.219.37.21 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire; it is rubbish and I was being accurate. Emeraude (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, I still don't think so, see there again--it would be fine if you are able to find a reliable legal source (and no, I don't want to have this disput on this pure level, which I see there from IP 84.69.20.194; please ignore such people) -- 79.219.7.226 (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<Anonymous rant deleted>>

You reverse the "château de Niort" with the Donjon de Niort. The château de Niort is in the south of France and its called Château de Niort, Château d'Aniorta or Château d'Aniorti. But the page Château de Niort talks about the Donjon de Niort (town in the west of France). You can see the French page about château de Niort and Donjon de Niort for more informations. I can't update the page because I don't speak English enough. (I'm French and I live in Niort, the one where is the Donjon so, sorry for my english ;).

TTr (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, you are absolutely right and I will correct it as soon as I can. Interestingly, the French Ministry of Culture calls it "Château dit le Donjon". will also correct the links between the French and English wikipedias in all the relevant articles. Emeraude (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted offensive vandalism directed at you and the reported the -as ever- anonymous unregistered user to wiki Admin. I generally take these things as a compliment, indicative of what these people are really like once you scratch the surface.--Streona (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. The excerpt is better spelled than usual- Patrick Harrington maybe?

I notice you did the ASLEF v.United Kingdom. Do you know who represented Jay Lee? was it Lee Barnes? In Baggs v.Fudge, the decision from the judge (called Tickle- it sounds like a CBBC programme!) says he left his "52 page statement" at home! I remember Harrington (with his NELP law degree)in the old NF days took to defending his chums in Court with hilarious consequences as well, after which they were said to be threatening to "come looking for him" (when they got out). If we can get enough information perhaps Mr.Barnes can have his own article as well. --Streona (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the ASLEF. Thompsons solicitors also sponsor Searchlight events. I am rather interested in the track record of "Solidarity" at representing the unfortunate members of the BNP at tribunals and the kiss of death this represents to their hapless charges. I hope you find this link as amusing as I do http://www.practicallaw.com/jsp/binaryContent.jsp?item=:34774387 in the case of Baggs v. Fudge and the revelation that Lee Barnes, the legal kleagle of the BNP claimed not to have been able to receive any post for two years! I think I'll stick with Unison. --Streona (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon d'écrire en français..mon anglais est très mauvais. Vous avez indiqué que This castle was bought by the French soprano Emma Calvé in 1894. Il s'agit du château de Cabrières dans l'Aveyron et non de celui de Cabrières dans l'Hérault qui n'existait plus à cette époque. Cordialement Fagairolles 34 (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, vous avez raison. J'ai lu dans le musée de Millau qu'elle a acheté le château de Cabrieres et j'ai supposé que c'est lui dans l'Hérault. Mon erreur. Emeraude (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject France News What's new? The project has recently experienced a complete redesign. The Outreach department has also undergone a major expansion, and this newsletter is the result of that. The review department is currently under development, with several new proposals underway. Internal peer review had begun on the page of the project's Review Department. The department currently provides a centralized platform off all currently open reviews throughout the project (Featured Articles, Peer Reviews, Good Articles, Articles for Deletion, Categories for Discussion, etc.) A new task force has been introduced: the Paris task force. Any users interested in contributing to the taskforce can join on the project page. There is a current discussion about merging the French Communes WikiProject into ours. This communes project will be organised as a task force. User-related news Notifications Several new user has joined the project this last month: Jordan Timothy James Busson, Djwilms and Mcewan. Welcome! Please come stop by the talk page to join in our discussions. Lazulilasher has been awarded the French Barnstar of National Merit for his contributions to this project. Congratulations! Complete project tasks Complete To Do List The following is a list of all the current tasks for the project, as well as several project goals: Wikipedia:France-related tasks You can help! Vous pouvez aider ! Here are some France related tasks you can do: Requests: Gérard Garouste – Émile Peynot – more... Translation from French:See TRANSWIKI/French for details. fr:Formation territoriale de la France métropolitaine to Territorial formation of France – Loi constitutionnelle du 23 juillet 2008 to French constitutional law of 23 July 2008 – fr:Arbel Fauvet Rail to Arbel Fauvet Rail – fr:Merir to Merir – more... Stubs: Category:France stubs Category sorting: Category:French writers – Category:History of France Verify or Factual Accuracy: Gui de Ceriz – Rennes-le-Château – Simone Weil Update: Bischwiller NPOV : Foreign relations of France (Middle East section) – Torture during the Algerian War – François Mitterrand – Jean-Marie_Le_Pen – John Calvin – Marie Antoinette Wikify: Dida Diafat – French architecture Citations: Vichy France (section) – Falaise pocket – Charles de Gaulle – Vaux-le-Vicomte – Economy of France – Louisiana Purchase Merge: – Bourbon Family Compact Copyedit, Style or Cleanup: Antoine de la Sale – Albert Camus – Breton language – Claude Debussy – French Revolution – French language – Jean-Paul Sartre – Napoleon III of France – Nicolas Sarkozy – Picardy – Rennes – Sarah Bernhardt – Toulouse – Girondist – Louis XIV Expand: Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen – Vaux-le-Vicomte – Basque language – Being and Nothingness France-related Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject France view • edit • discuss • history • watch

Overview This is the new project newsletter, covering months August through to October, which will contain information regarding new Good and Featured articles, recent project changes, general related news, and recent proposals. If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject France. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the creation. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! Articles Five articles are currently undergoing external peer reviews: Louvre Abu Dhabi Louvre Family Moving Day Napoleon I List of Bellflower Bunny Episodes Two articles have reached GA status this month: Daft Punk Louvre Abu Dhabi Newsletter contributors Jordan Timothy James Busson

Thanks for your contributions to the project, Jordan ^Contribs 17:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As Guam is an American territory, it should be okay to say "Guam, United States" - nevertheless I decided to use "Guam (an insular area of the United States)" WhisperToMe (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Guam is not legally part of the US, it seemed wrong to me that USA should be in the location, though it is an unincorporated territory of the US. However, this is not the same as describing it as "insular area of the United States" - that couuld equally apply to Long Island!! Please edit as you see fit, but I would suggest something that stresses that Guam is administered by, but not part of, the USA; or simply leave it as I did which leaves readers the option of linking through to Guam and finding out for themselves. Of course, when Guam becomes the 51st state....... Emeraude (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article insular area states that this terms refers to territories not in the 51 states nor in DC, so Long Island would not be included (see also [4]). Also Guam residents hold US citizenship and many federal government functions apply to Guam (i.e. any airplane accidents in Guam, such as Korean Air Flight 801, are investigated by the U.S. NTSB) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "they are legally distinct from the United States and their inhabitants are not United States citizens or nationals" applies to states in the Compact of Free Association with the U.S., such as Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia; they are separate countries with different nationalities. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emeraude. I hope you don't mind but I've had a little look at your contribution history on the BNP and I find that you have often been involved in trying to maintain the label 'Fascist' despite seemingly endless attempts by others to remove it. You've managed to retain the tag so far - rightly so, in my opinion - and you seem to have done so without falling foul of other editors. I'm impressed and must look out for a suitable barn star for you. OK, so flattery over I wonder if you would have a brief look at the UKIP article wherein a similarly endless debate seems to be raging on the talk page viz-a-viz Populism. I'll understand if you don't want to get involved but a passing comment would be welcome - even if you disagree with my own view - as I'd really like to see the matter settled and the slight nastiness ended. Thanks in advance for any help. JaneVannin (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Home-Made Barnstar
		As promised! "For ye who do a lot of work in difficult areas and do it well".JaneVannin (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't give you the French barnstar for all the work on Chateaus, tempted as I was, as you already have it. So I thought that this rare Home Made barnstar would make for a nice change. JaneVannin (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message about this one. In the time that I set that article up I was engaged in research for my Public health degree... unfortunately since then my career has taken me elsewhere so I don't readily have a stack of information. What I can offer is the following:

• Official Website from the Web Archive from 2002
• Information Page verifying some of the claims I made in the original article
• A list of the society's publications from 2006
• Information about the 2006 activities of the society.

On those websites you can find the contact details of people involved with the society, branch details etc. I think that should be enough to prove it was an active organisation as recently as 2007. You will note that many of them have .ac.uk and .nhs.uk email addresses indicating that this was not a fictitious group but an active learned society. A brief chat with a former colleague, who was a member, has revealed they are not aware of it being wound up.

Also, I'd like to say that the Web Archive records the site changed to the personal blog after November 2007 so the comment about it having an official website was correct at the time I made it. The Personal blog it now points to the is that of Dr Hagger-Johnson, lecturer in public health at Leeds University. I suspect he used to run the SHEaHPS website and something has gone wrong on a technical front - perhaps he decided not to renew his web-hosting agreement.

As for the future of the article, I have no strong feelings as I am now involved in other fields. I think this organisation is notable enough to appear in NHS publications, it probably deserves something here. Can I suggest the use of Web archive as a very useful tool in determining historicity?

Thanks for the heads up. OJ Keenan Oliver Keenan (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is not a reliable source.

You said: "Is not a reliable source." BNP Leader Nick Griffin says it is. To be honest, I'm prepared to believe him on this. The Guardian yesterday wrote "the BNP has confirmed that it is essentially a genuine membership list." I'm also prepared to believe that. Now, it may be that the BNP has listed as members people who aren't. Is that what you mean? That raises questions about the BNP's integrity, but the leak is absolutely reliable as a source of who the BNP has put on the list, whether members or not. Emeraude (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx.82.31.162.27 (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, it's not. Newspapers don't even link to it, and carefully avoid telling people how to find it. How can you possibly use it as a reference? 82.31.162.27 (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they link to it or not is really rather irrelevant. How can you say they "carefully" avoided linking to it? That implies something which is merely your own inference. They have not linked it, that's all, though some have mentioned that it's on Wikileaks. Besides, it's location has shifted and shifted again over the last few days. That the press has used information from it is much more important. If it's a source for reputable newspapers, it's a source.

Rubbish. Please read WP:RS. "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." In other words, while a reputable newspaper can perform investigative journalism to determine whether somebody really is a BNP member, or you can report that 'News sources reported that 'x' was on the BNP members list.', but a document on wikileaks, absolutely by definition can never ever itself be a source for a Wikipedia, even if news articles about the document are.

It has been verified by the BNP Leadership as well. The only problem with the list is that, although genuine, you cannot rely on the BNP to have a truthful list; there have already been reports of people claiming they were not members and it has been suggested that it includes just about everyone who came into contact weith them. Personally, I'm not interested in "outing" anyone from this list,

Eh? That's exactly what you did. You searched a name and added it to that person's Wikipedia page

but with suitable caveats (e.g. the BNP claimed X is a member on it's membership list) I don't see a problem. Emeraude (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BNP has not published its membership list. You have absolutely no right to use it. None, zero. 82.31.162.27 (talk)

FYI: User talk:82.31.162.27 started an AN/I thread concerning you, WP:ANI#'Outing' of BNP members. Nsk92 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've started a discussion at Talk:British National Party#Bruns, et al. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created BBMC to introduce Chinese institutions to readers, and all my information was translated directly from Chinese official website. But some newly created ID's keep adding bizarre and unconfirmed information. I wish someone could take a look at it. Many thanks. Ramtears (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching those. I'll get to fixing them as soon as I can - however it may take a little time, as I'm a bit tied up at the moment in real life, I'm afraid. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How recent? I was '06 - there's a possibility I might know her. (You can e-mail me about it if you prefer - I have a link on my userpage.) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I know anyone who lives in Roanoke. Possible, though - I'll check into it. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't ring a bell, sorry. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Emeraude-Steve, I want to transmit my best wishes to you for the Holydays. Joyeux Noël, Jean Fex (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emeraude/Steve, I'm Stefan Roever.

I believe you recommended that the wikipedia article on me be deleted or better sourced:

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

I couldn't agree more. It was originally written by a disgruntled employee, and while it contains some true facts, it also contains a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. Of course I could write a better article, but I don't believe that's appropriate for me as the person in question. I'm also not convinced I merit a wikipedia entry at all. Do you have any advice on what the proper process is for me to deal with this issue?

Thanks in advance, Stefan

Sroever (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rollback you did Here did not have a valid reason. What the hell has hackers rewording the parliment got to do with a bloody wikipedia article. I changed them because females can hack. And you revert it and place the most confusing edit summary ever "Yes, females can hack, but hackers can't reword Acts of Prliament and neither can you". I might not be able to change the acts of parlament. But i can at least change a bloody article on wikipedia. Next time think before you revert. Kind Regards Arctic Fox 21:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, there was an excellent reason to revert your edits and I'm sorry you did not understand it. You had changed the wording within a quoted section of an Act of Parliament. You cannot do that. No editor on Wikipedia can change anything that is a direct quote from a source (unless it is misquoted)! For your information, in Acts of Parliament "he" is used to include "she" (and "they"), something I had previously explained when reverting a similar edit on 17 November 2008, so it's not sexist and does not assume or imply that women cannot hack. Emeraude (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a courtesy note to let you know that I have asked the admin who deleted this article, which you nominated for deletion to restore it. I have given my reasons for asking it to be restored on the admin's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping you a line in response to your message over at my talk page. Sorry about it taking a while but I haven't been on here much for the last week or so as I've been up to other things. Anyway thanks for drawing it to my attention and having checked out the debate page it looks like you've convinced them. Nice work. Anyway, once it's up and running let me know if I can help with referencing or the like. Keresaspa (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kenneth Francis, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bernardomahoney.com/forthcb/ootdie/articles/bnpleoasg.shtml. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The source is the London Evening Standard article "BNP man out over Ecuador girlfriend, dated 30 April 2002. The article has been used as all editors do as a source for writing. It is not a copy of the copyright work, but a synthesis of the information contained within it. The source has been correctly referenced.Emeraude (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the Latin text in Ingelmarius. It tells essentially the same story as the article; it is a bit wordier, but mostly because of editorializing about Ingelmarius's perfidy, rather than adding facts. I moved the text to a reference note; it seemed worth keeping. If whoever added that text to the article has access to the source text of the complete work by Geoffrey Malaterra, it would make a worthy addition to Latin Wikisource. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes please!! - if you have any photographs (especially of locks) I'm know that La Nouvelle branch and Locks on the Canal du Midi would be exceedingly grateful (as would I). I too have been somewhat bitten by the Languedoc bug and we spend our Septembers in Bize-Minervois - as a competent stalker could probably tell from the radius of the locations of the photographs I've taken! We spend a lot of time on the Thames when we're in England so it is unsurprising that we're drawn towards the canals when we're in France although we have yet to take a holiday afloat down there - and unlikely to change that any time soon with the state on the pound against the Euro... Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have already made a list... Emeraude (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated British National Party election results, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British National Party election results (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you observe Wikipedia's guidelines on referencing with regard to op. cit. and punctuation and correct where necessary. Thanks 212.84.104.169 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy can be used as an ideology, because the Popular alliance UK party believes that citizens should get a vote and say on nearly all political matters. In other words, they want the people to have more of a say, and that is Democracy. Also, Populism is a democratic ideology, because it wants citizens to have more of a say.