Thank you - a truly unexpected honour. Emeraude (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republicanism in the United Kingdom|British republicanism"

"Reverting utter nonsense"

Hilarious! Sorry, I just wanted to say you made me chuckle with that revert. Thanks. The things people will write on that page are beyond belief haha! Alexandre8 (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But did he/she really believe it? It's terrifying to imagine so. Emeraude (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea! I guess it doesn't matter. Republicanism? Like, I can understand jokes likes "socialism" or "nazism" or whatever, but where the hell did republicanism come from :P!!!? Hilarious. I guess he was joking or just really really bad at school? Alexandre8 (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus were you referring to? Alphasinus (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That relating to ideology of UKIP, as noted in the infobox and the introductory paragraph. There has been a long discussion in this page about UKIP's political position, or at least, about how it should be described. The general consensus from that discussion had been that UKIP is populist, Eurosceptic, Conservative and/or National conservative (whatever that is - just because it's held by consensus doesn't mean I agree with it) and has elements of classical liberalism and libertarianism but is not, in the main, a classical liberal or libertarian party. If you think this is wrong the correct way to go about things is to discuss first in UKIP's talk page, preferably after having read the archived discussions on the same topic to avoid going over old ground, and to present your argument with appropriate sourced evidence on the talk page. Emeraude (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Shaneoverton.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an image (or text) is publicly available via a press release, for example, does not automatically mean that it has been released into the public domain. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are having problems with I Attempt From Loves Sickness. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron, becuase I Attempt From Loves Sickness is another of his sockpuppets. Marquis was banned from Wikipedia editing for six months (from early December, therefore a ban that is still in place) for exactly the sort of thing that he/she is doing right now. With any luck the latest account will be blocked shortly. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's very intersting. Thanks for that. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you can provide the soucre so i can read and varify it then thats all were asking for. The quotes you have made on the discussion page are very detailed, you must have read the article recently to get them? yet it is a broken link, thnkas 94.192.142.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Well done on improving the Tokheim article - it looks much better. Vrenator ^talk 16:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Amazing that the inventor of the petrol pump was totally absent from Wikipedia!! It's a shame I'm not an expert on business/finance though. Hopefully, someone with more experience in the field will take over, but I think I'm about done now. Emeraude (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the word 'bassist'? Just curious - it's a very widely used term, and 'bass guitarist' seems unnecessarily old-fashioned to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I partly agree with you, and partly disagree. I agree about "sophomore" - a very annoying word - but I think the word "bassist" is perfectly acceptable in articles about rock groups. It's unlikely to be misleading or confusing in that context (how many rock groups have tubas?!), and clearly language moves on. But, I certainly won't make an issue of it. As for posts that are inconsistent in spelling "encyclopaedia" and "encyclopedic", however.......  !! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning Scotland should contain only those acts which apply only to Scotland, same with the other two categories which should only contain categories to acts which only apply to England and Wales, and only to Northern Ireland. (English laws should be subcategorised to Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning England or Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning England and Wales where it applies). Tim! (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emeraude, hope you're doing well. I noticed your new article on the above castle and one thing really stood out to me: the use of white marble as a building material. I don't know a great deal about building materials, but I can't think of a single castle in the UK that uses marble in this manner. When I think of marble building the Parthenon that springs to mind than medieval castles, so I was wondering if you know how common the use of marble was in French castles? Nev1 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clue, and it does seem strange. The source was the most reliable, French Ministry of Culture (linked in the article), which states "Murs construits en marbre blanc." (Walls constructed in white marble.) I presume the marble was available locally and would not have been polished. Emeraude (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has tempted me to look up marble in Wikipedia, which says that "More generally in construction.... the term "marble" is used for any crystalline calcitic rock (and some non-calcitic rocks) useful as building stone." Whether that also applies in France I don't know. Emeraude (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article piqued my interest because I can't think of another example, though limestone is fairly common. Your suggestion that it was simply a local stone makes a great deal of sense. As for what constitutes marble, that's something that goes way over my head. Nev1 (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Ministry would have got it wrong. Elsewhere, it does decribe castles etc built of limestone (calcaire). Marble is metamorphosed limestone, but I imagine that there must be various grades depending on the extent of the metamorphosis, which is certainly what the Wikipedia article says. Unfortunately, it is some decades since I studied geology! Emeraude (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll forget the arrogance in your reply to my section over my grammar, I have dyslexia. First, what policies of UKIP would appeal to the Far-Right BNP. Second, UKIP was founded by former Conservative Party MP's, members, etc, so UKIP has not stolen policies of the Conservative Party, but was founded by pre-existing Conservative politicians, who just found the Conservative Party was far too Pro-EU and Liberal, so to enhance Conservatism they established UKIP. Third, I can't think of any element of UKIP's Manifesto which does not consist of Conservatism. Please all I would like is for Conservatism to be added to the article of UKIP. (E.Davies100 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I think you had better forget the arrogance in my reply over your grammar, dyslexia or not, seeing as I made no comment at all on your grammar. Please read my comment again, and when you understand it - the crucial point is the difference between Conservatism (i.e. the Tory party) and conservatism (i.e. the political philosphy) - perhaps then you would like to join in discussing the issues. Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: E.Davies100 turns out to be a sock puppet and is now banned. Emeraude (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you have the latest (May) issue, that's assuming you read it (I don't)? Just need a quick clarification if you do. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. I read it ocassionally, or consult online, but only extracts appear there. Emeraude (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll wait for excerpts to appear on the website. Thanks anyway. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your confusion here, "self-titled" means "named after the artist". The artist is Lonestar, the album is also Lonestar, so it's self-titled. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. There's no confusion, and it's not just with Lonestar. "Self-titled", in that sense, is a ridiculous construction much beloved of music writers who lack either a decent grasp of writing skills in the English language or simply slavishly follow fashionable phrases without thinking about what they mean. It's laziness. And it's technically wrong: the band's manager could have given the album the name, or the record company, or it could have been voted on by fans, so the fact of the band and the album having the same name is not the same as self-titled. "Eponymous" would be better in terms of accuracy, but is rather pretentious. In either case, it looks ridiculous as a blue link. If the album has a name (which of, course, it has) then why not use it? This is, after all, an encyclopaedia and the style of writing should reflect that and not the worst scribblings of the music press. Emeraude (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you recategorize as Category:Châteaux in Lot (department). Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not. There is a dinstinct difference in meaning in English between "castle" and "château". This all goes back a few years when for reasons I never did understand, the decision was made to scrap the category Castles in France, so that every castle was then recategorised under "Châteaux in France", a total nonsense in the English speaking world. My objections brought about the compromise of a category "Fortifed Châteaux in France" which is even more ridiculous. Now if you would like to organise the revival of the more sensible category "Castles in France" (restricted to proper castles) I would be delighted to support you. Sub-categories could include, where there are sufficient numbers, "Castles in Lot", "Castles in Aveyron", "Castles in Gironde" etc. But I think it is vital to maintain the difference between a castle and what in English is called a château (i.e, a stately home, mansion, palace etc.). After all, this principle applies to every other country and region.

Incidentally, I will over the next few hours be expanding the Lot castle articles that I created today. Interestingly, none of them has coverage in the French Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was a complete mess. Yeah I agree Category:Castles in France makes much more sense, what I wanted was to have categories for each department and transwiki them all. Go ahead and recategorize those actual castles as such. If anybody objects I'll support you adamently and I'm sure a few others will too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will try. Emeraude (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we discussed the castle/château issue in 2008. I have now created Category:Castles in France as well as sub-categories for regions such as Category:Castles in Alsace. I have not made categories for Departments: it seemed to me that whereas Cat:Castles in France would be unmanageably large without subcategories, there would be far too many subs if there was one for each department. However, if you think that would be useful you should find it easier now that the regional cats are in place.

I have begun to edit castles articles from List of castles in France to either add a Castles in... category or to replace a Chateaux in.... category if the article is clearly about a castle. There will be a number of articles where the subject is a castle that has become a château and these will need both types of category. So far I have completed Alsace and made a start on Aquitaine.

I hope this goes some way to meet your initial request. Emeraude (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the edit work done on Chateau de la Motte. You did much needed work. I had looked at the writing so often I couldn't see what needed doing. It is such a small unimportant chateau I feared no one would ever improve it. You were generous to notice it.

I was glad to see the other work you've done on other chateaux in France, and I look forward to reading more of them as to what is known. My own research turned up so much from the 1600's and afterward, but the medieval period seemed so sparse in such a traumatic time. Thanks again. Mlane (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks as if you have "undone the redirect" at Pas très catholique by cutting and pasting contents rather than requesting a move (requesting would be necessary because the redirect was edited after the previous move). I will restore the contents, as otherwise the article history is split between two pages. You are welcome to request the move, I agree that with IMDb using the French title that would seem reasonable. --Mirokado (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure I fully understand the technicalites, but I'm glad you agree with my point that the film, as far as I can discover, is only known by its French name. Emeraude (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to reflect the French name. Please see Wikipedia:Moving a page for general information about doing so. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves for information about making the request. --Mirokado (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Moving a page says "Pages may be moved to a new title if the previous name is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or for a host of different housekeeping reasons such as that it is not the common name of the topic...." (my italics) which seems to cover this issue, so why bother with requesting a move. Anyway, I'm going away now for about seven weeks, so I can't deal with this now. Emeraude (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normal mortals cannot move a page if the new name already exists (in this case as the already-edited redirect). I will look in a bit more detail and, if I see no problem with it, make the request, but not tonight! --Mirokado (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Something Fishy (film)#Requested move. --Mirokado (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your recent edit to this article. 'Music for Pleasure "were" a New Wave band', in the same way that 'R.E.M. "was" an American rock band' (this is a difference in British English/American English). Also corrected your spelling "Keyboard layert". memphisto 18:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, "The London Symphony Orchestra are an organisation that play music"? It's not British/American. It's more a case of if the reference is to the individuals who form the organisation, or the organisation itself. So, for example, "Man Utd is a football club" but "After several injuries, Spurs are likely to lose today". Whatever. The standard of writing in most music articles is totally lousy anyway. Thanks for the typo correction. Emeraude (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have dug up an article that explains this convention: Comparison of American and British English#Grammar memphisto 09:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but full of its own contradictions. However, it does repeat what I said above: "In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular ... or plural ... verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is on the body as a whole or on the individual." Since when was Elvis Costello held up as a paragon of English grammar usage? Does that article really imply that only Americans use "The United States is...." and are the reasons given of any genuine signicance or total bollocks? Emeraude (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just come across this: "Pluto was a Canadian alternative rock band from in Vancouver, British Columbia. They were nominated for a Juno....". I suppose Canadian falls somewhere between British and American!! (lol) Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Emeraude. Please note that "electoral failure" is not neutral language, and therefore fails WP:NPOV and our policy on weasel words. If you were being fair, you'd have to call perennial failure Winston McKenzie the same, which I suspect you're not willing to do. Let's keep things as they are, Wikipedia is not a campaign website doktorb _words^deeds 21:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Guilty. I was just reverting an edit by an apparent NF supporter who elsewhere had removed "right wing" from a description of Edmonds. Deleted my edit and the whole sentence (his most recent campaign/failure is hardly relevant to the article). Emeraude (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate receiving accusations like this. Please withdraw your accusation. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. You reverted a series of edits on the grounds that they were "contraversial, that is a 'comment' blog and not sufficent for such a claim". Firstly, it was not particularly controversial; the source is a good one, but not for the claim made for it. Secondly it was not a "comment blog" as you stated. Thirdly, you have persisted in referring to a "telegraph comment page" when it has been clearly pointed out to you it's a blog. To me, that's twisting reality. I could also describe it as being deliberately misleading. If you don't appreciate it, stop twisting reality. Emeraude (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give you a second chance to withdraw your personal attack. Accusing me of being deliberately misleading for treating the guardians comment pages the same as the telegraphs is unacceptable GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing to do with, as you say, "treating the guardians comment pages the same as the telegraphs" (and again you persist in misrepresenting the nature of these sources which is the whole point I have made) - I agree wholeheartedly that for the uses to which they have been put they are inappropriate.

Read what I wrote. "I could also describe it as being deliberately misleading" is not an accusation. What you did is misleading; you ought to know it is misleading. Therefore, I could describe it as deliberate, since I cannot see it is accidental. Incidentally, I have not made a personal attack on you; I drew attention to what you wrote and are still writing, even now, not to you. That is not personal. So, there is nothing to withdraw. Now stop threatening me. Emeraude (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing another editor of being deliberately misleading is a personal attack, regardless of whether you add a caveat of 'I could describe it as' GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. And it was misleading.

This correspondence is now at an end. Emeraude (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Contented sigh.) Your edit comment, (and your edt), bring hope to the heart of a grumpy old man who has begun to despair regarding the future of wikipedia. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From another grumpy old man, you're very welcome. Another thing that annoys me is "self-titled" as in "Fred Bloggs, the self-titled album by Fred Bloggs...". Presumably all other albums are titled by a machine totally unconnected with the performers! Emeraude (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! (Particularly given that "Fred" probably had NO say in the matter anyway ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred might not have been his real name though. So, strictly speaking, he may not have been eponymous. Emeraude (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Yes, you have a point. So if it truly was eponymous, it would have been called "Reg Dwight". Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article Airport Weeze, here you can read the background story of the renaming. It's only a marketing phrase of Ryanair and not the official name, and over 70km far away from Düsseldorf. I think, Wikipedia shouldn't be the advertising platform for any company. I hope you we can accept the arguments... Kindest regards, --Pitlane02 talk 11:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, an airport name and how it's marketed by itself, the airlines and other airports is likely to vary. Beziers-Cap d'Agde en Languedoc is how it's marketed - its official name is Beziers-Vias; just as Weeze's official name is Flughafen Niederrhein. Same applies to just about every other airport in the world. The same applies to London. There are eight airports which call themseleves "London" : London Heathrow, London City, London Gatwick, London Stansted, London Luton (which was also renamed just a few years ago), London Southend, London Ashford (which is really Lydd), London Biggin Hill. Only the first two are actually in London. Düsseldorf Weeze is how everybody without local or specialist knowledge refers to it. It is the way it is marketed by Ryanair (and by all the other airports which serve it, including Beziers) so that seems the logical name to use. The Weeze airport article does a good job of correcting it. I'd bet that no one in Beziers has ever heard of Weeze, other than attached to Düsseldorf by Ryanair et al. Emeraude (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in Germany have ever heard of Weeze too. ;-) BTW: The next bigger towns are Nijmegen (56km), Duisburg (59km), Arnhem (62km), Oberhausen (64km), Essen (79 km), and than Düsseldorf (80km). Even the next big and international airport Cologne Bonn Airport is only 56km far away from Düsseldorf, so it's easier to understand the decision of the court. And something is different to the London airports, nowhere the Airport Weeze names himself as Düsseldorf-Weeze. (As I know that my English is in need of improvement - to say the least - I am grateful for any feedback indeed.) regards --Pitlane02 talk 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is understandable. But everyone else cals it Düsseldorf-Weeze and the airport wanted to originally. I know from visiting Beziers Airport that most of the passengers on the flights from Düsseldorf/Weeze are Dutch though, and not German. Emeraude (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see that you often tag articles with unreferenced or BLP unreferenced, such as this one. Please only use the unreferenced tag for articles with no references at all, and use tags like {{BLP sources}} and {{No footnotes}} for articles that have a reference, which is listed under external links. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er.... but there are no references or notes on that page, not one. External links are NOT references. Emeraude (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the template {{inline}} or {{Refimprove}} are for. To differentiate between no sources and articles with just external links GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True up to a point, and I often use the {{inline}} tag. Unfortunately, its wording - "This article includes a list of references..." - is nonsense in cases when there are no references. External links, whose reliablity is not guaranteed, are no substitution for verifiable references. Similarly with {{Refimprove}},

Some external links are not references, such as links to home pages of associated companies, sporting teams or universities. But external links to specific pages that verify the content of the pages, such as sporting stats databases, or other links that inexperienced editors stick in the wrong spot, are references. To claim otherwise is being overly pedantic and against the whole reason why we want references in articles - to satisfy WP:V. And you forgot to read past the first comma in {{inline}} - the rest of the sentence says This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links and note there is an OR in the sentence, not an AND. The-Pope (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't forget to read past the first comma at all. What a silly thing to say. I didn't quote beyond the first comma, because I was under the impression, from your original posting here, that you were talking about references! Emeraude (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reference is defined by the content of the reference/link, not by it's formatting, location in an article or the label on the subsection it is in. The unreferenced tags should only be used when there is nothing in the article that directs users to an external source which can verify the content, whether it is a properly formatted inline citation or just dumped at the end in an external links section. If you are questioning the reliabilty of the links, then there are specific tags for that too. But it is still a reference.The-Pope (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you and started a discussion on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for message. Responded there. Emeraude (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If I well understand your message, we have to create a category:Castles in Vaucluse? Just for your information, we doesn't have Châteaux fort in Vaucluse! Most of them dated on XVI century. Marianne Casamance (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Château de Lourmarin is not a "French palace" too, as Chateau de Lacoste!Marianne Casamance (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this article was not unreferenced, there is an external link already present which confirms some of what is said in the article. I have re-tagged appropriately. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me. I missed the facts that he was born on a certain date in Glasgow and scored 44 goals in 106 matches for Clyde were in the external link, but they're the only details in the text of the article that are! And how reliable is that source anyway? Emeraude (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:81.149.185.174.2C_213.120.148.60_and_others regarding the IP editor making a number of UKIP-related posts. I thought you'd like to know as your name has come up in the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on updating the airports. One thing you might be interested in. The infobox will automatically convert metres to feet (and the other way round). So now as I update the airports I usually do this. Save time in figuring out the conversions for lengths and heights. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you kindly to assume good faith with regard to looking at this section and not to disregard reliable sources in the way that you have. Secondary sources were clearly stated as such, so there was no need to to respond so dismissively. many Thanks 130.88.114.38 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of good faith. I have questioned no editor's good faith at any point. I have pointed out that the sources (in reality, all the same source) are not reliable for what is claimed of them. Emeraude (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! I'm happy to help out a fellow editor. Cheers! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably have the impression that I am not your biggest fan and have a problem with your manner. However that does not mean that I think you deserve to be treated the way you have by various IPs :-) I think you've brought the problem on yourself but I don't think its in any way justifiable for people(a person) to treat anyone like this. Why don't you just block all the University IPs permanently instead, you clearly know what the range is. Really if someone is using a shared or public computer they have no right to use the IP for edits. If people want to make edits from a public computer they should just get an account. I don't have an account because I'm using my own home broadband which I only I have access to, that is my right, it can only be me who has ever edited under this IP. Seems it would be so much easier to block that University's public computers, do that and your problem goes away and it prevents further incidence in the future. Seems like the only practical and easy full proof solution. Regards 94.9.107.169 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emeraude.

I have put some justifications for the changes I have made to the UKIP page on the talk page (the ones you keep reverting). You might like to read it.

Atshal (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at this report on your role in the edit war at UK Independence Party, or you risk being blocked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To save some time- can you give me a link to the wiki-linking policy on overlinking. I tend to view links inthe lead and links in the info-box as being entirely separate from those in the main article- ie below the TOC, which makes reading easier on a Smart phone- something I have missed obviously. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." The key is whether or not it is helpful to readers, which must be a subjective call. In a comparatively short article, which this is, it's usually not necessary to repeat a link. Emeraude (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do these changes address your {{advert}} concerns? --Lexein (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To a large extent, yes. Emeraude (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new article has been written deleting copyright-infringing material. Information has been summarized from sources without plagiarism. Please use new edition Talk:Serio (rapper)/Temp in place of previous version. The following url http://www.mtv.com/artists/serio/biography is now in compliance with the Duplication Detector. Matches now found on the Duplication Detector are primarily proper nouns and articles (parts of speech). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.121.177 (Paul) 18:16, 28 May 2013

I just thought it was common knowledge how both groups of demostrators get arrested or beaten up. There's a few examples on UAF's article and a BBC example from the weekend. Also check the Huffington Post on their trip to Aarhus in Denmark together http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23394934 Indiasummer95 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Common knowledge" is not the basis for writing an encyclopaedia. The article is about the EDL, not UAF or other groups, so we must concentrate on that there. I think you might find in reliable sources on EDL demonstrations that arrests of counter demonstrators are minimal (try a full Google news search on last weekend's EDL demo in Birmingham, for example); the BBC report you cite is very unclear about the identities of those arrested, charged or injured and certainly not sufficient to justify the edit you made; a more detailed report, probably because they actually had a reproter there, is in the Birmingham Mail. Of course, what I have just written is also not encyclopaedic, but this isn't article space.

I agree. Look at the non-violent peace-loving UAF's campaign of love and law and order against the BNP http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-06-01/58-anti-fascist-protesters-arrested-from-uaf-group/

Why should I? Your carefully chosen adjectives reflect your POV, even now. But, instead of rehashing the story about 58 being arrested (not for violence, assault, threatening behaviour, but for being in the wrong place) you ought to consider that not one of the 58 has actually been charged with any offence! Emeraude (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to revert you as the sources I've found, including Reuters, show the UAF as one of the groups, not the leader (except for that local paper). But your edit summary seems to agree with me, so were you reverting me or the previous editor? If you really think the sources back UAF lead you need to justify that at RSN. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was in error. Edit in haste, repent in embrrassment.

As you say, UAF was one of the groups, but there is no evidence that those who were arrested were part of UAF. Probably, not, since UAF's tactic was to remain at the Altab Ali park. There is a report on the Internet from another group claiming that they led the breakaway that specifically damns UAF for staying put! (I'll find it later)^*. What is also a problem is that the sources seem to be simply repeating a police statement from early on in the evening, saying 150 were arrested. In fact, something like 300, or slightly under, were kettled in two groups and then subjected to blanket arrest under s12 of the Public Order Act. In the first batch, the police even arrested the independent legal observers! (The Independent mentions this.) It would seem that the newspapers' (or agency) figures relate only to this first group. Section 12, to put it simply, deals with "knowingly" being somewhere the police have said you shouldn't. From what I have heard, there is no way that any of those arrested could have "knowingly" broken the law and this looks like potentially being the biggest group civil action for wrongful arrest ever brought against the Metropolitan Police. Emeraude (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^'*"Mass arrests of anti-fascists in East London", Workers Liberty

Actually, WP:OPENPARA does say not to have the place of birth in the opening brackets. Exact quote - "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability; they should not be mentioned within the opening brackets." Secondly, the information is unreferenced and therefore violates WP:BLP and WP:V. GiantSnowman 16:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:OPENPARA is a guideline so it's okay to deviate from it. Your use of "violates" is a bit strong. The correct way to deal with unreferenced material, unless it's particularly contentious, is to either correct it, find the references or request citations (as you have done twice in the following paragraph!). Giving Northampton as a birth place is not particularly contentious. As to his family, happy to see those details go - of no relevance whatsoever. Emeraude (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this as a compromose then? GiantSnowman 16:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If I get a bit of time, I'll take a look for references, but I'm not hopeful.Emeraude (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just needed to let you know that, while I reverted your edit, I did go back and reinstate those aspects of your edits that were valid. I know I sound pompous here, so we can always discuss the edits on the Talk page, as I am not, of course, the arbiter of this page.--Soulparadox (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation issues fixed. Thanks for highlighting them Weglinde (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I notice here that you put a POV tag in the article. It suggests there is info on the talk page, but the talk page doesn't have this info. Are you interested in adding an explanation to the talk page?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. As I said in my edit summary, the subject is not within my area of expertise, but the article reeks of one-sidedness. I was hoping someone with a better understanding of the sunject would take it up. Emeraude (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are on 2RR over there, please stop removing reliably sourced content. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -just removed the category again - as my edit summary says, "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" Of course it also says ", and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." but the article needs to meet both criteria. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You didn't make that clear in your original edit. Emeraude (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have - more haste less speed or whatever the saying is. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - we all suffer from that! Emeraude (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there -could you please stop removing the membership increase because you think it is not an independent source? Fair enough the first time it was from the party website so I said no problem I will go get a neutral source but then you said '"Ukip said" does not make it a reliable independent source.' First of all, yes it does as it is from a neutral newspaper report and second of all go have a look at the Conservative Party membership and then read the source. It says 'the party said there are now 134,000 constituency members, down from the 253,600 who voted in the 2005 leadership contest.' This is exactly the same as the source you have a problem with. No editor has a problem with that source for the conservatives so you should not have a problem with the source used for UKIP. Thanks. Tomh903 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference. UKIP website says 34,000. Now that may be right, it may be wrong, but it's UKIP saying it and as such it is not a reliable independent source. If the newspaper report said that UKIP's membership was 34,000, then that could be an acceptable reliable source (though questionable, since we would expect there to be some way that the paper had verified that). But the paper does not say that: it says "Ukip said" that, and it neither confirms nor questions the veracity of Ukip's claim, which as we have said is not reliable. It has made no effort to check Ukip's claim (or any of the other things Ukip claims in the article) so it remains questionable and unreliable. Emeraude (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read it more carefully. The figure for UKIP membership is 34,000 not 134,000. Why is it acceptable for the source on the Conservative Party membership to say 'the party [Conservative Party] said there are now 134,000 constituency members' but not acceptable for the source on UKIP membership to say 'Ukip said its membership has reached a record of more than 34,000'? I mean they are literally the same statements but you seem to think only the UKIP one is unacceptable. Tomh903 (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to read anything more carefully - I got blind to you quoting 134,000 above! Now corrected. As to your question about the Conservative Party article, I have not said it is acceptable. Emeraude (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have said that it is acceptable but no other editor has had a problem with the source being used for the Conservative Party which is a mirror image of the source being used for UKIP so you should not be reverting the membership increase because you think the source is unacceptable. Tomh903 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not noticed that I have not reverted since you came here? Let me explain: I do not regard the Tories claim as "acceptable" any more than I regard UKIP's claim as "acceptable" and neither do I regard them as "acceptable" just because the claims have been unquestioningly reprinted in a newspaper. Newspapers repeat all sorts of claims from all sorts of people, and those of policitical parties will always be suspect, and I'm not just talking about membership figures. Further, just because no one has raised this on the Conservatives article does not mean that there should be no concern there or there is no concern there and, in any case, it is a general principle on Wikipedia that just because something happens in one article it has to happen eleswhere - see #What about article x?. Emeraude (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you sure that the name Château de Trévarez is correct in English context? --Anton^Talk 12:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Read the details at the top of List of castles in France for a full explanation. Basically, a castle is a military structure from the middle ages. In French, the word château is used for what in English would be castles, stately homes, palaces and vineyards (and even water towers: château d'eau). Emeraude (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Le petit pâté de Pézenas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. JMHamo (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexf^(talk) 15:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. One does one's best. Emeraude (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Talk:UK Independence Party#Request for comment about whether academic sources describing the UK Independence Party as far-right are reliable. LordFixit (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kemp the editor has done a lot of editing of Derby-Lewis's article, using his self-published book as a source. The editor you reverted made this edit which is an interpretation of what the source says, see [3] which doesn't mention the SPLC or " the revelation that Clive Derby-Lewis had given Kemp's name to the police, not the other way round as the SPLC alleged" (the SPLC article is much later of course).I think the same editor added those boosk - I've removed them with an edit summary explaining why. Hopefully I'll be doing more work on these today. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Emeraude (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this to WP:RSN - the editor, who says he wrote most of the article, is now calling removal of the text vandalism and rejected my request on his talk page to go to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you've opened a discussion. The other editor was given an edit warring warning and I've pointed out he's at 3RR (as you are but I'm sure you know that). Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Between 09:15, 7 May 2014 and 10:21, 8 May 2014 you have had four reverts, please be more carefull. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BOLLOCKS. Go threaten someone else. I have reverted THREE separate items. That in no way concerns the three revert rule. They are:

1. Membership figures: Reverted deliberate misuse of a source (Express) for membership figures. Reverted use of UKIP figures for membership - non-neutral. (Two separate issues.)

2. Glasman: Reverted your use of Glasman, twice. (My rationale subsequently supported by others and taken to discussion.)

3. Inheritance tax: Reverted a NPOV claim about cost/benefit.

So what's the problem? Contavening the three revert rule is an 'offence', but I have come nowehere near that and your admonition to "be more carefull" [sic], even with a "please", is unnecessary, unwarranted and threatening. Emeraude (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not threatening you, just letting you know that you are near violation of WP:3RR, which I recommend you read, 3RR is all reverts on an article, reverting different content is not an exemption, it still counts as a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are threatening me. There is no need to let me know that I am near violation of 3RR, which I do not need to read. If you want to report that I have violated the rule, do so and I think you will find that the explanation I have given above is more than sufficient. But how about your reverts/partial reverts yesterday at 0940, 1009, 1812 all on the same topic! Emeraude (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the content you worked up into the existing article. Please don't remove the cited content from the other versions. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. There are certain subjects on Wikipedia that are almost always targets for deletion because some editors here don't like them.

I think there is a case to be made for a merge, but I think it's probably best kept as an independent article and the coverage the party and its candidates have received is sufficient to establish independent notability. Obviously, I can't control what recommendations others will make.

As far as content, a couple of editors have criticized the inclusion in the article I worked up of bullet points on the party's platform. I understand their concern about promotion, but I think that has to be weighed against explaining what the party actually stands for and their stated platform. Primary sources are sometimes useful for the basics.

I definitely think the cited content to independent sources is worth including. For example the trial of the radio show host. The party has stuck a nerve as far as free speech v. hate speech / religious tolerance issues. That's what brought it to my attention initially for example. I think it's a pity that there are those who would censor subject matter they find distasteful or disagree with from Wikipedia. But our policies say we are not to be censored and I think it's best to shine a light on these things and to subject them to the light of day and scrutiny. Is the part actually known as Liberty Great Britain? I haven't seen that anywhere, but it's in the article as the formal name of the party. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may find this interview interesting if you haven't seen it yet [4] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heard the highlights on PM on Radio 4. In The One Show last week, a comedian said, "I'm not saying that Farage is a racist. But then I don't say a can of Coke is a wasp. But as soon as its hole is opened, it gets surrounded by wasps...." Nearly crashed the car. Emeraude (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's satisfying to see somebody finally get him to stop dodging questions. That analogy is one of the best that I've heard yet about it, just fucking lost it at the library --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Emeraude, I have added a source and a note indicating notability to Lawrence Lidsky. I think he was influential in the US debates about the practicallity of developing fusion for power. I don't know if you might like to reconsider this one and perhaps withdraw this AFD. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Well done. I think that and edits by User:David Eppstein suitably establish notability and I will withdraw the nomination. Emeraude (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These articles have become rather bloated. As the election simmers down I expect we can clean them up. Karma for creating articles on such controversial and provocative subjects? Thanks for your efforts to tame them. I'm sorry I haven't been more helpful, but I needed a break after the initial disputes. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you undid my edit regarding UKIP Scotland, you said that votes were still being counted and it was "totally premature", in fact the votes had been counted with UKIP winning one MEP there! :) Guyb123321 (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. You edited at 10:37BST when the votes were still being counted in Western Isles as BBC News webpage made clear. What they were showing was no more than a projection. That's why it was premature. At the time I undid your edit (11:25 BST) it was still not complete. Emeraude (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Western Isles, is incredibly sparsely populated, meaning that the vote there (considering that all 31 other councils had reported their vote) would not have been able to switch the results. No matter though, UKIP won their first Scottish seat! :) Guyb123321 (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still premature whether it affected the number of seats or not, and it was quite likely to affect the percentage. In fact, with the way that seats are allocated, it is very difficult to say who will get what until all the votes are in, and almost impenetrable when they are. (UKIP's 10% of the votes get one-sixth (17%) of the seats; SNP gets nealy 3X UKIP, but two only seats; Lab gets 2.5X UKIP but only two seats.) Emeraude (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you left a note on my talk page (though you forgot to sign it). The version of Zouzous that I deleted was blank. I can't see your name in the article's edit history. Can you refer me to the version you would like to restore? Deb (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make much sense of the edit history and I don't want to do a cut-and-paste move. However, I have temporarily blocked the user who's been moving the pages around so he can't do any more damage. Is Zouzous now called La Quotidienne or is it something completely different? Deb (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm still not quite sure how to fix it but will have another look. Deb (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Emeraude, just wanted to remind you that I sent an email 5 days ago detailing how to get access to BNA through The Wikipedia Library; please make sure to follow those instructions and complete the Google Form. Thank you, Sadads (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The GVP source (http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=210020) gives the elevation of Puy de Dôme as 840 m, not 1,465 m as it was previously stated in the article. The source also states that the latest well-documented activity in the Chaîne des Puys region took place about 6000 years ago near Besse-en-Chandesse and included the powerful explosions that formed the Lac Pavin maar, not Puy de Dôme. Looking at the Eruptive History tab it gives the following:

• Montcineyre, Estivadoux, Pavin 4040 BCE ± 150 years
• Puy de Come, Puy Montchier 5760 BCE (?)
• Puy de Lassolas, Puy de la Vache 6020 BCE ± 150 years
• Puy de Pariou 6250 BCE (?)
• Puys Chopine, Vasset, Cratère Kilian 6550 BCE (?)
• Taphanel tephra 7020 BCE ± 100 years
• Puy Mey 7740 BCE (?)
• Western Puy de Dôme 7840 BCE ± 200 years

By the looks of it the eruption of Western Puy de Dôme 7840 BCE ± 200 years ago is the oldest and the youngest eruption took place at Montcineyre, Estivadoux, Pavin 4040 BCE ± 150 years ago. If a source does not necessarily state Puy de Dôme was the last volcano to erupt in the Chaîne des Puys region and does not directly gives its elevation it is either WP:OR or WP:SYN. Volcanoguy 17:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The source clearly gives the summit elevation of the Chaîne des Puys, i.e Puy de Dôme itself, as 1,464, not 840m. But the reliablity of 1,464 in the source is questionable seeing as every map of the area gives 1,465. (Try the Michelin map for size.) Given that, I would be suspect of any dates given by the site, but in any case, "Western Puy de Dôme" is not Puy de Dôme itself. Emeraude (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point. What you are using in the article is for the Chaîne des Puys chain, not Puy de Dôme itself. As a result it is incorrect. And it does not say Puy de Dôme is the highest point or has an elevation of 1,464 m. You are misusing the information. The latest eruption about 6,000 years ago took place at the Lac Pavin maar, not Puy de Dôme. Volcanoguy 19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the date of the last eruption can be contentious, as it is for any volcano that erupted before recorded history. The latest research seems to suggest 10,700 years ago. (D. Miallier, Pierre Boivin, C. Deniel, A. Gourgaud, P. Lanos, M. Sforna, Thierry Pilleyre "The ultimate summit eruption of Puy de Dôme volcano (Chaine des Puys, French Massif Central) about 10,700 years ago", Comptes Rendus Géosciences 342 (2010) 847-854) I suggest that's a reliable and up-to-date source that ought to be used.

However, when I say that Puy de Dôme has an elevation of 1,465m asl I am right, the GVP source is wrong and so are you if you use it! Your figure of 484 is pure fantasy! Are you denying that Puy de Dôme is the highest point of the Chaîne des Puys? Have you taken the very simple step of looking at a map to check? You might also check the following:

• "Physical and optical properties of 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption aerosol: ground-based, Lidar and airborne measurements in France" in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 12, pp1721–1736, 2012 - "The Puy de Dôme (PdD) research station is located in the centre of France (45^o460 N, 2^o570 E) at 1465m a.s.l.."
• Clermont-Ferrand Tourism - "From its summit, towering at 1,465 metres,...."
• Larousse map
• Planète Puy de Dôme - "Avec ses 1 465 mètres d’altitude,...."
• Nicola Williams, France, p592 - "The ice-flecked summit of Puy de Dôme (1465m)...."
• Lonely Planet - "The shapely summit of Puy de Dôme (1465m)...."
  

Emeraude (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emeraude,

I thought I would put a polite suggestion here for you to be a little more gentle and polite with other editors - I refer in particular to your exchanges on the UKIP talk pages. You seem to be involved in a disproportionate number of disputes there, many of which result in unpleasantness and an antagonistic atmosphere on those pages. I believe this is partly down to your forceful and sometimes abrasive manner, and this discourages many new editors from continuing to contribute to the page, to the detriment of both the article and also Wikipedia more generally.

I hope you take this in the spirit it is intended - not as an attack on you, but a gentle suggestion that will make working on the UKIP page in collaboration with other editors far more pleasant for everyone involved. Atshal (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I take it as an attack on me. You seem totally unconcerned that another editor called me a dick, hardly surprising, since you also seem to go out of your way to contradict anything I write, so I suspect the "disproportionate number of disputes there" actually means you. Thank you. Emeraude (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to the request. It seems you are choosing to be uncooperative - I refer you again to the WP:CIV. If you choose not to start treating other editors in a civil manner then I will have to escalate this to a higher level. I believe a large number of other editors would support my appraisal of your behaviour. Atshal (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being unco-operative - I see nothing to co-operate about. Admitted I shouldn't have suggested the person who called me a dick a plonker,, but that's between them and me, and they haven't complained. I notice you have made no comment about that at all. Again, you are being selective, personal and are starting to get annoying. Emeraude (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UK_Independence_Party&curid=437707&diff=618829210&oldid=618828077

at least you are being honest now - it was never a joke for you - have a read of WP:TPG - your comment does not fit as correct usage of a talkpage - I ask you again to delete or strike it Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it was a joke. Really. Have you no sense of humour? Or are you not aware of the link between "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" with UKIP? I thought you wanted to me to strike through (joke) so I did. If you want it deleted, you could have declared it vandalism or not funny and deleted it yourself. I'll delete it (and so that your comments don't remain looking silly in a vacuum I'll delete them too. Emeraude (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have deleted your comment on sight as an attack unworthy of talk page discussion but as you are aware wiki guidelines are weak and that was what allowed you to post and publish your attack without me having the clear ability under WP:TPG to take it down. I appreciate you taking it down after my complaint - Ta Mosfetfaser (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An attack on who or what exactly? Emeraude (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A group of living people - this is talk page special from you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UK_Independence_Party&diff=prev&oldid=618829210 - Why not add: See also fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists? (Joke.) Emeraude - Mosfetfaser (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to repeat all that. But I asked you a simple question and I'm guessing by your answer that when I asked earlier if you were aware of the link between "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" with UKIP, the answer is "No." Emeraude (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm John. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --John (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. The first of your deletions is cited to to Max Hastings in The Daily Mail and The Sun. The second is cited to Tim Shipman in The Daily Mail. This was the case before your first deletion as you must know. I reinstated the citations when I reverted your edit so you had no grounds for deleting the text again. Emeraude (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total bollocks: It is referenced - see above and read the article. Emeraude (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest reading WP:BLPSOURCES before you make any further reverts. We cannot use tabloids like the Daily Mail or The Sun to verify controversial material on a living person, and I am rather surprised to find a non-newbie thinking that you could. --John (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

FYI, le château de Wildenstein et le château d'Altkirch ne sont pas des monuments historiques. Je viens de corriger les deux articles pour retirer la catégorie erronée.

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 15:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup. Emeraude (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emeraude! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the best I can do is doing a Google search (which, I suppose, you have already done) as all the pictures I uploaded were from an album with photographs of MPs elected in 1895. If there is one of them that needs an image, he will most likely get it when I finish uploading all these. Keep in mind, though, that even in that album, some people were left without an image.--The Theosophist (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would understand the mid-career albums being seen as not important enough, but pretty much every publication ever discussing black metal history will definitely bring up this album. It is both a fans and critics' favorite and many, many words have been written about it and its influence. 190.109.207.7 (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but the article needs to say, with reliable sources, why the album is notable. This it fails to do. The best we get is "De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas is widely acclaimed as one of the masterpieces of the black metal genre, and its bleak aesthetics and lyrics have often been cited as an inspiration by other black metal groups". No sources. The band itself may be notable, but this does not mean that all or any of its albums are. If, as you say, "pretty much every publication ever discussing black metal history will definitely bring up this album" then there is scope for establishing notability, though that is still extremely vague. Emeraude (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Thank you for reverting my UKIP membership change, I did not realise that I failed to change the source, I must have just forgotten. I have now updated the membership with a new source for March 2015. Anonposeidon (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reverted the changes you made to this article. See User:Aymatth2#Line breaks for an explanation. By removing single line breaks, which are explicitly allowed in the manual of style, you are making it harder for a handicapped editor to contribute. I also see no reason to use the French spelling of "chateau". This is the English WP. These edits are not constructive. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the unnecessary line breaks if you wish. However, seeing as you quoted it, you should be aware that the Manual of Style says, "a single line break may follow a sentence, which may help some editors." It is not compulsory. It actually makes editing for the rest of us harder. I am well aware that this is the English language Wikipedia which is why I quoted the Oxford English Dictionary for spelling:

château, n.

Pronunciation: /ˈʃatəʊ/

Forms: Also 17 shattow. Pl. châteaux.

Etymology: < French château < Old French chastel < Latin castellum CASTLE n

a. A castle; a large mansion or country house (cf. CASTLE n. 3): used only in reference to France
and other parts of the Continent. (Formerly in more general use.) Also occas. used in reference to
Britain. Also attrib. and Comb.

b. A French vineyard, usu. in the neighbourhood of a château; freq. in the names of wines made
at these vineyards. Hence château-bottled adj. (of a wine) bottled at the vineyard.

c. châteaux in air, chateau(x) en Espagne , château in Spain, Spanish château =
castles, or a castle, in the air (see CASTLE n. 11).

So I'll put the circumflex back. Emeraude (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I will accept the circumflex, although it shows as a spelling error in my edit window. I can't see how ending a sentence with a single line break makes editing harder. See Wikipedia talk:Don't use line breaks. Some like them, some don't. But if you find an article full of them, do not remove them. They were probably put there by a shaky old editor like me, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you removed my citation request from the Richard Verrall article. Not a problem, I understand why. I used the incorrect template for it. Their is one to attach to a specific sentence if more citations are needed for verification of a particular point but I cannot remember what the coding is. Any idea? In regard to this matter, see the talk page on the Verrall article. Thanks.

You might want to add the tag questioning the reliablity of the source ^{[unreliable source?]} but I suspect that World in Action is entirely reliable. Besides, you need to remember that the NF at the time was seeking to appear respectable and it was natural that they would deny it. The fact is that Verrall has had ample opportunity to deny publicly that he is Harwood and he hasn't.

By the way, it's better to add new messages at the bottom of a page and you should sign them with four ~ s. That will automatically add your identity, date and time. Emeraude (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your tagging some album articles with {{Notability}}. Please make yourself familiar with WP:NALBUMS and stop using the tag when the album has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." 114.167.178.175 (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of WP:NALBUMS. The notability tag invites editors to add reliable sources that establish notability. I think you'll find that I've tagged articles where there is no assertion that the album is notable. That is not to say that the album is NOT notable, just that no one actually can tell from the article. A collection of, frankly, obscure reviews does not make an album notable and does not constitute "multiple, non-trivial, published works". Emeraude (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that you have not just removed that tag, but seem to have reverted my edits in total, thus removing other tags (unreferenced, refimprove) and textual improvements/corrections. That is not listed in any of your edit rationales, making them dishonest, and amounting to vandlism. Emeraude (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A collection of obscure reviews makes an album notable and constitutes "multiple, non-trivial, published works". 153.230.154.119 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it constitutes a collection of obscure reviews and nothing more. Read the whole of WP:NALBUMS; satisfying just one is insufficient, and the general notability requirements must also be met. However, I notice, once more, that you have totally reverted the whole of my edits, regardless of the notability issue. You have now reached two reverts. Be careful. Emeraude (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfying one criteria of WP:NALBUMS is sufficient. 153.202.187.153 (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

114.167.178.175 and 153.230.154.119? Stinks of sock puppetry with intention of avoiding WP:3RR violation. Emeraude (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm 114.167.178.175 and 153.230.154.119. 153.205.19.189 (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so a triple sockpuppet and 3RR violator. Emeraude (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude, the articles have now been semiprotected per my closure at WP:AN3. But I'm puzzled you would put a notability tag on Flyer (album). Doesn't a 2015 Grammy nomination for best contemporary folk album (more than 20 years after its 1994 release) suggest the album deserves an article? EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And, yes, you're right about Flyer. Somehow I missed that and you may notice that on my last edit I did not include the notability tag. Emeraude (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you deleted a link to an example freemen on the land blogpost, which I put in as an example of FMOTL thinking. Can you tell me what policy you were using for this? This isn't an attempt to start an argument - I understood that it's possible to use biased sources in limited doses as examples of fringe thinking, and I'm interested to know what policy you're making the decision on. (My logic was that it's hard to entirely understand the doctrines and (especially) tone of the FMOTL movement purely from the clinical, rational perspective of outside-the-cult articles more normally used as sources. I would otherwise be inclined to treat vaccine deniers or homeopaths similarly, for example.) Blythwood (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. My reasoning was that the Wikipedia article itself should be the place to illustrate Freeman thinking, backed up with references to reliable sources. I think our article does that. The general thinking is that blogs are not reliable sources, but regardless of that, it is not our place to provide a soapbox directly or indirectly for vested interests, and especially when they are blatant bollocks. We have no control over what these sites say, so should be very careful when we provide uncritical links to them. What would your attitude be if the issue was racism, Nazism or paedophilia? Emeraude (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll defer to your obviously greater experience, but I'd note that I can certainly think of Wikipedia articles that link as primary sources to Nazi doctrine, homeopathic literature, people who really need help, other people who really need help and so on...without giving the impression that they're anything other than complete nonsense. (To be fair, not all on websites they control, and my example was certainly chosen partly for its sheer entertainment value as well as for its general utility as a statement of doctrine...but it certainly gives the idea of what these people think!) Blythwood (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Groupe de Barbezieux requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Dissident Aggressor 21:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See[5]. "A group of MPs are calling for an investigation into a far-right website described as a training manual for anti-Muslim paramilitaries – amid fears that an upcoming exhibition of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in London is designed to incite Islamist violence." Liberty GB is involved. Did you know we have an article on Vive Charlie? Doug Weller (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, interesting. Hadn't heard of until now. Emeraude (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that 2 days after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Harijan was deleted Late-development syndrome was created? Ram Harijan is now a redirect to it. A search on "Late-development syndrome" psychosomatic turns up nothing. Yes, "Late-development syndrome" is a term used in various ways, but the sources don't seem to relate to Harijan's concept. [[[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I missed that one. Emeraude (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's with 114.177.123.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? The anon has undone many of your edits without the undo. An attempt to hide his work? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He is waging a personal campaign using a variety of IP addresses because I put a notabilty tag on a couple of articles some months ago. The sad wanker just reverts everything I do, even if it's just correcting a spelling mistake. Emeraude (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having made a thorough study of the forces dedicated to destroying my own country, and knowing that Hitler faced very similar forces in his, I have come to believe that many of his intentions were good ones and many of his achievements admirable. But that does not mean that it is right for a British movement belonging to an entirely different phase of history to model itself on the movement of Hitler... We are a different country, with our own proud past and traditions, and these — not the traditions of foreigners — should be our source of inspiration".

In an interview in 1974 he remarked on it as "unwise" and elaborated on it in further detail (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7LU2V4ghWE (2.22-3-42).--92.23.137.127 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sugar coat it. Tyndall didn't associate with the National Socialist Movement, he was one of the leaders of it and went to jail for his part in organising its armed section, Spearhead. His later rift with Colin Jordan was based in large part on Jordan pinching his fiancée while he was serving his sentence. Tyndall left and set up his own fascist group, the Greater Britain Movement, but never renounced his views, only his association with Jordan. Emeraude (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to "sugar coat", he never denied his involvement in neo-Nazi movements during the 1960s but he moved away from it and called such involvement as a mistake which he came to later recognise. As has already been said, he was involved with the neo-Nazi movements most notably the National Socialist Movement in the 1960s. Did you even bother to watch the link I sent you? He admitted that being involved with such an extreme organisation was "unwise" and that many of his views had changed, although some had remained the same which he said was being very patriotic and a nationalist. Tyndall rejected Jordan's openly adherence towards German Nazism and opted for something that was more 'British'.

In The Eleventh Hour regarding Hitler and Nazism he remarked:

having made a thorough study of the forces dedicated to destroying my own country, and knowing that Hitler faced very similar forces in his, I have come to believe that many of his intentions were good ones and many of his achievements admirable. But that does not mean that it is right for a British movement belonging to an entirely different phase of history to model itself on the movement of Hitler... We are a different country, with our own proud past and traditions, and these — not the traditions of foreigners — should be our source of inspiration.

This statement does not mean he advocated neo-Nazism, on the contrary, he believed that some of Hitler's intentions were good but he did not want to advocate such a movement or ideas for Britain and the British people.

As regards to Tyndall and fascism, the only people who call self-identified nationalists like Tyndall or parties like the BNP as "fascist" are its opponents who more often than not do not even understand the ideology of fascism but anything that is nationalist is often labeled as 'fascist' or 'nazi' by them. Nothing in his book hints that he advocated fascism, he remarked that during his earlier years of studying that he had read about Mosley and was interested in his fascist views but was put off with the idea of a single European nation and studied other nationalists and their beliefs during the 1960s.

You seem to be evidently ignoring the fact that Tyndall changed his views from the 1960s and advocated British nationalism, although he was what is known as a "neo-Nazi" in his early in politics during the 1960s, in the 1970s his views had changed and he did not advocate neo-Nazism but British nationalist beliefs.

Your interests is listed as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", that just doesn't have anything to do with the way you're responding...--92.4.243.161 (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've further added:

He wrote: "having made a thorough study of the forces dedicated to destroying my own country, and knowing that Hitler faced very similar forces in his, I have come to believe that many of his intentions were good ones and many of his achievements admirable. But that does not mean that it is right for a British movement belonging to an entirely different phase of history to model itself on the movement of Hitler... We are a different country, with our own proud past and traditions, and these — not the traditions of foreigners — should be our source of inspiration".

This is from his book and shows the reader exactly why he later came to change his views.--92.4.243.161 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All total bollocks. Tyndall was a life long fascist whose only regret at being Jordan's deputy, apart from the personal, was that he wasn't fuhrer, a situation he remedied with the GBM, NF and BNP until ousted. His views never fundamentally changed, just the methods by which he pursued them and espoused them, which is hardly surprising given a 40-50 year time scale. His "conversion" to "British nationalism" does not represent any change of direction, just description. Tyndall regarded Moseley as soft and was always a Hitler man ("Hitler was right").

And my interests have nothing to do way I respond as you suggest. If you want to accuse me of political bias, then do so, but you will need to be on much firmer ground than that I have stated an interest in anti-fascism - that amounts to a personal attack. It is ann interest, based in academic study and research of the subject at postgraduate level. My edits/comments have nothing to do with personal views or positions, though I suspect very stringly that your insistence on whitewashing Tyndall says a lot about your own position. Emeraude (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your recent revert: "Inappropriate and one-sided treatment". Why are reputable press, scholarly sources and archival photos inappropriate for Wikipedia? Zezen (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor had previously reverted these edits with the comment "This is not the place to imply other parties were in favour of peodophilia or do a snow job on a nasty hate campaign." That is a correct interpretation. To reinsert the same with an extra source does not improve matters: it remains inappropriate and it is definitely one-sided with a pro-NF bias. Emeraude (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He issued me with a legal threat (reported to ANI) and then created a new 'official page'! just nominated that for deletion ----Snowded ^TALK 18:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I had guessed that he was an ED member but never cottoned on to his official position. I am, though, somewhat disappointed that he didn't threaten me as well.

Incidentally, I wonder if User 86.157.99.203 is the same person. Emeraude (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have received a notification through the Notifications extension, but anyway, here's a formal notification that I mentioned you in a topic started on the administrators' incident noticeboard. I am looking forward to your reply there; thanks! odder (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/insider/the-shame-of-paul-golding-3616

Matt Collins is a former National Front member, not Golding. He alleges Golding was a member, but he provides zero evidence for this, and the other newspaper reports just quote him without checking if it is accurate. There is no reliable evidence Golding was a member of the NF. Note that the cenotaph photo next to Golding is Mark Collett (sp?), BNP. So this photo is not National Front. Golding was a former BNP member, official and councilor, not with the National Front. Beside that issue, why is Matt Collins a former member of the neo-Nazi national front considered a "reliable source"? Hettydetty (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'He isn't; the publication that reports it is. You are not in a position to say that the newspaper reports did not check accuracy, unless you are the journalist who wrote the articles and are now confessing to sloppy work. Somehow, I don't think that's the case. Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are a partcipant of WikiProjects Airports, your inputs could be useful here. Pathmaraman (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [6], maybe you're seeing something that I'm not, but http://www.cica-uk.co.uk/cica-scheme/ doesnt look like a government site to me, but rather a site to attract clients for http://www.tdpsolicitors.co.uk/ . Am I overlooking something? --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. No, you're quite right. I'm not usually fooled by people like this, but it has been cleverly designed to look like the real site, which is this. I've now used the full text for the ref. Emeraude (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at WP:RPP for semi-protection and reported to WP:AN3, you might want to comment at both places. Meanwhile just ignore any more IP edits, I'm sure they'll get dealt with. I'd block but it's an article I edit. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK and thanks. I'm not sure that any comment is necessary - it seems a clear cut case. Emeraude (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of edit warring to remove maintenance templates I suggest you address the issue on the article's talk page. The discussion is at Talk:English Democrats#Ben Quinn article. You may explain there where exactly the Guardian article states that the English Democrats are a "far right" party. Keri (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently added a notability tag to the "Do You Like My Tight Sweater?" page. I have removed this, as the album was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry (and a reference has been provided for this), which surely establishes the album's notability.Nqr9 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. But 60,000 is a rather trivial amount isn't it? Emeraude (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emeraude. I see you've translated a lot of articles on castles in France from French to English, are you happy translating in the other direction? If so can I interest you on translating the article on Wressle Castle into French? For context I am a trustee of the Castle Studies Trust (a charity); we funded some work at Wressle and I expanded the article recently to more fully cover the site's history. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wressle Castle, nice article and one that certainly deserves to be in other language Wikipedias. However, I don't feel confident enough in my abilities to do the job, much as I would like to. I know when I translate into English whether or not I have produced a finished product that uses good grammar etc; I'm not so confident the other way round! There is a procedure for requesting translations into English (see Wikipedia:Translation) and I'm sure there must be something similar in French Wikipedia. Perhaps try there. Good luck. Emeraude (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fr:Château de Wressle. I did it under IP but t'was me anyway. LouisAlain (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, a fine job. Emeraude (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me on that. I incorrectly assumed it was casually added to the list.

I had a tough time finding any reliable sources (French or English) referring to it as a "chateau-forte" or castle. I even tried the French Wikipedia, but surprisingly this chateau/castle is not even listed anywhere (as chateau or chateau-forte).

If you could find more references, I would like to add this to the French Wikipedia site in the future, including their list page Liste des châteaux de l'Yonne. Thanks. Dig Deeper (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Be aware when looking for information on Château de Jully that there is also a Château de Jully-lès-Buxy in Saône-et-Loire (71) - this can cause confusion in Google etc. The French Ministry of Culture database is a useful first stop for researching French monuments with a simple to use searchable map. It is also authoritative. Specific detail on Château de Jully is here. A great place for finding historical documents is Gallica BNF which contains a massive archive, in French, of documents covering several centuries. I've just done a quick search there for "Château de Jully" and found 33 results, though whether any are properly relevant I don't know.

Actually, I've just now gone to French Wikipedia and found that there is an equivalent article, titled Abbaye de Jully-les-Nonnains. Emeraude (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, much appreciated! I'll add chateau de Jully to the list and create a redirects and some Wikilinks on French Wikipedia.Dig Deeper (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude:

I have completed a French to English translation of 3 Château related articles I would would appreciate your feedback or edits, if you have a few moments. I think you know more than I about this subject. Please see the following....

Château de Druyes Château de Chastellux Château de Maulnes

Thanks, Dig Deeper (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you go over to Diva (My Sister's Machine album) and look at its history, you will see that I tried incorporating the info from Wallflower and Tanks of Zen with the intention of renaming it My Sister's Machine but it looked messy. I'll understand if Wallflower and Tanks of Zen have to go but I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at what I tried to do and seeing if you have any suggestions for a merger so that the info on those articles can be retained. Thanks.--Shaneymike (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that this, or other articles, should go. I have no opinion on that and have not suggested deletion. What is needed, as the notability message states, is an indication of why the album is notable, backed up with independent reliable sources. The fact that an album exists is not enough - not every album is notable. The purpose of the tag is to bring this to editors' attention and to give people an opportunity to add relevant information, such as significant awards or chart positions, that show notability.

If you haven't already, you might want to take a look at the relevant notability guidelines which give information on the sort of evidence that would be useful. If you can add any such detail, it is OK to remove the notability tag.

Another option would be to merge that album's article into the article on the band. This has been done in other cases (and it does, of course, require the band itself to be notable!).

This is not my area of expertise - you clearly know more about this band and its albums than I, so you are probably better placed to find and add the relevant evidence. Hope this helps. Emeraude (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately I haven't found enough independent reliable sources for Wallflower like I did with Diva, which is why I totally understand why you tagged it and why I was trying to do a merger. I've been doing a lot of what you're saying, merging album articles with band articles. I'm thinking I'll take another crack at doing what I was initially doing trying to create a My Sister's Machine discography and merge Wallflower and Tanks of Zen onto there, and I'll just add a link to Diva since that appears to meet the criteria for a stand-alone article. I'll keep you updated. Shaneymike (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing, but, the reference lists some rebuilds:

• https://www.welt.de/reise/Fern/article132642408/China-hat-jetzt-ein-Schlosshotel-Neuschwanstein.html

Here's the Google translation of the reference:

• https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Freise%2FFern%2Farticle132642408%2FChina-hat-jetzt-ein-Schlosshotel-Neuschwanstein.html&edit-text=&act=url

Slide the 18 pictures. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 09:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The pictures weren't working when I first looked. It's awful! I've copy edited your text for clearer English. Emeraude (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 13:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Protection Party may have been discussed before, but it still doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. Both arguments consisted of asserting the party was notable because it had stood candidates and a Google News search was pointed to, but no actual coverage was found. There's none in the article. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which notes there is no "inherent notability" - meaning existing and standing in elections is not sufficient. Fences&Windows 10:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Categorisation of parties. Fences&Windows 13:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTUSA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:Well, I never. What a surprise. Emeraude (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In context, fascism was indeed the correct link - apologies for that -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 16:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Emeraude (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The party didnt hold any Anti Semitic policies, but instead critiqued the Jewish Elites involved in Freemasonry, Jewish Nationalism in Europe and the Polish Guarantee. Mosley actually later advocated the two state soloution. Depicting them as Anti-Zionists for being against their involvement in government supporting Pro-Jewish policies, is also a very new term. So the best anwser is probably to leave it at Isolationism and British Fasicism. Magnus2108 (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on so many counts. Firstly, policies are not the same as ideology. Secondly, the BUF's marching slogan was "The Yids, the Yids, we've got to get rid of the Yids". (Echoed by the National Front in the 1970s chanting, "The Reds, the Reds, we've got to get rid of the Reds" and "The Wogs, the Wogs, we've got to get rid of the Wogs" - see Lord Scarman's report into the events in Red Lion Square in 1974.)

But regardless, the BUF's anti-semitism is attested by so many commentators that it is beyond question. See, for example, Nigel Copsey, Anti-Fascism in Britain:

"The foregrounding of militant anti-Semitism from 1935 onwards marked a turning point in the fortunes of British fascism.... It is common knowledge that the BUF's campaign against Jewry was focused on the East End of London..... Combining a generous supply of street-corner meetings with increasing levels of anti-Semitic abuse, intimidation, harassment and violence, the BUF's campaign began in Bethnal Green in late 1935 before widening out to other East End districts during 1936. In addition to Jew-baiting from the soapbox, Blackshirts would parade through East End markets on Sundays, shout insults and implore locals not to buy produce from Jewish traders. Jews would be followed into back streets and physically assaulted. Many Jews feared going out at night." (p 38)

"The BUF's anti-Semitic campaign was not exclusive (the BUF campaigned on other issues too), and it should not be forgotten that its anti-Semitic campaign also targeted provincial cities with sizeable Jewish communities, such as Manchester and Leeds in northern England...." (pp 40-41)

All in all, you're trying to rewrite history with a brush dipped in whitewash. Emeraude (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policies and ideological representation of a political party is what lays foundation of what the party adheres to. The leading figures of the BUF (Mosley and his speakers) did not adhere to such a hatefull viewpoint, he has stated this many tims. The BUF did have its radicals and anti semites, who did indeed fall under this category. But its not as simple as that, you cannot simply denounce their party manifest because members of the party held different viewpoints. if a member of the Labour Party where to go out and call a Jewish person Kike, or maybe even assault him. Would that mean the Labour Party now adheres to an Anti Semitic ideology? The BUF was very critical of the Jewish involvement in Internationalism and economics, and of their involvement in the political sphere, leading up to the second world war. You have to learn the difference between criticising a people on the count of race or religion, and on the count of Politics and Economics. You have a degree in political science, you should know this.

Also when were talking about reliable sources, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1513465/Oswald-Mosley-was-a-financial-crook-bankrolled-by-Nazis.html

Would you consider this a reliable source? I think not.

I dont think you understand the culture of NPOW on Wikipedia. You claim to only rely on reliable sources, while this was one of first ref's listed.

And in regards to what Mr. Copsey wrote. It is indeed true that after the autumn of 1935, the conflicts in the east end party meetings and assaults started happening. but what Mr. Copsey forgot, is that Left Wing Communists (predominantly jewish) started attacking the meetings using brutal force and methods in the early months of 1935. Mosley and the blackshirts simply defended themselves.

Your sources is overly subjective. While objective writers is a rather controversial matter, using literature which have been regarded as advocating favoratism to the left of the political spectrum, is not considered reliable.

Nigel Copsey has also been regarded as a Far-Left sympathiser by many of the people whom have studied his works. He is widely considered biased and unreliable among scholars. His works was actually debated on L-GB recently. https://libertygb.org.uk/news/professors-anti-fascism-nigel-copsey-matthew-goodwin

Mosley's comments in regards to the anti semitic accusations.

Full Interview - Thames Television https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhF28fzN9I

"Now let us be absolutely clear about this question... i was never anti-semitic and ill define anti-semitic: by that i mean someone who attacks jews on the count of race or on the count of religion. I had a quarrel, not with all jews but with some jews, about one subject. Wether there should be a second world war or not." Oswald Mosley | 1975 (On Thames) Magnus2108 (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly an apologist for the anti-semitic BUF. Everything you have written is biased and your quotes are highly selective. Your accusations of bias against a respected expert in the field are not acceptable. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources (including Copsey), not personal opinions or interpretations. You have not provided a single reliable source that says that the BUF was not anti-semtic (I wonder why).

So how about this from chapter 7 ("British Fascist Ideolgy") in Robert Benewick The Fascist Movement in Britain:

"[P]articular themes in the movement's propaganda were emphasized in order to attract support from possible sources of discontent. The most important were its appeals to youth, nationalism, anti-Communism, anti-Semitism and its attacks on th political élites. Policy was often manipulated withg a callous disregard for principles so that at least one of the themes, anti-Semitism, gained ascendancy over the B.U.F.s proposals for reform..... Where the attacks on the 'old gang', the Communists and the Jews had once been seen as a means to an end, they became ends in themselves." (pp132-133) [P]olitical anti-Semitism... characterized B.U.F. policy..... The Blackshirts maintained that Jews were racially inferior." (p134)

The previous continues:

"Mosley often stated that he was against the Jews not for what they were, but for what they did."

which is not to say that he was not anti-Semitic. Besides, the issue is BUF ideology, not what Mosley may or may have said and what he actually meant by that. To continue with Benewick, pages 151 to 158 clearly describe the development of anti-Semitism in the BUF, with copious quotes from Mosley, Raven Thompson and others as evidence, with approving comments from the Nazi's chief Jew baiter Julius Streicher.

Consider also, Alan S Millward, "Fascism and the Economy", in Walter Laquer (ed) Fascism: A reader's Guide (p450), drawing on W F Mandle, Anti-Semitism and the British Union of Fascists

"The British Union of Fascists, who believed firmly in this set of racial ideas, also deliberately eschewed the use of them on the electoral platform at first because they were of no use as vote winners. Only in the decline of the party did they openly adopt, as a last desperate measure, an overtly anti-Jewish platform." Emeraude (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off, "reliable and trusted sources" wouldnt have Copsey listed, for the same reason as many other scholars, he embraces favoritism. You study Anti-Fascism if im correct, an almost united front of Left-Wing propaganda. Claiming these certain forms of literature to be a reliable source for a NPOW article is bourgeois. He has made claims in the past that certainly proves my point.

Secondly, The British Union of Fascists as a party, was not a deliberately Anti-Semitic, never was. Which is what were discussing here, no point in targeting the members as a whole, but ratherly the manifest of the party. If the BUF is, and im quoting "Anti-Semitic", how come we would see the following Jews in the leading positions of the party?

John Beckitt - British Union Director of Publications
Bill Leaper - Editor of The Blackshirt
Harold Soref - Later Tory MP (earlier member of the BUF)
Kid Lewis - Boxer (member of the BUF)

Claiming unreliability? - You havent answered my question. Why was that horribly subjective link at the top of the page? or the defense of their meetings from the left wing jews whom attacked the meetings? you're the selective one here. In Oswald Mosley's "The Greater Britain" (http://www.balderexlibris.com/index.php?post/Mosley-Oswald-The-greater-Britain) it is layed down what a Fascist British state would look like under the British Union of Fascists, and at no point in that manifest, is there any mention of hatred towards jews/judaism from a racial or religious perspective. Telling the public, to not buy from Jewish stores is not Anti-Semitism, it is, stated again, against Jewish Market Supremacy.

We are not going to ever agree on the subject, since neither of us use the same sources as information. You're using discredited Left Wing writers, and im using publications which predominantly publish stuff, revolving around the Right. This is why im proposing a compromise. Dont put Anti-Semitism as a deliberate political ideology on the article, leave British Fascism there, as the article around it explains the Jewish subject revolving around it in there.

"You have not provided a single reliable source that says that the BUF was not anti-semtic (I wonder why)"

Spartacus Educational, a great source revolving around objective factors in regards to political adherence has published a great article around the party: http://spartacus-educational.com/Pfascists.htm

Magnus2108 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emeraude. I have added all the citations I could find for the page of Château de Montsoreau, Let me know if it is good enough for you, and if you could remove "the reference box"? All my best, Philippe49730--Philippe49730 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emeraude, I hope you are well. Thank you very much for reviewing this page. The Val de Loire has been listed as a WHS in 2000 for 3 noteworthy criterions : i (Architectural), ii (Outstanding landscapes), iv (Architecture illustrates the ideal of the Renaissance). The mainline of this WHS is: "The Loire Valley is an outstanding cultural landscape of great beauty, containing historic towns and villages, great architectural monuments (the châteaux), and cultivated lands formed by many centuries of interaction between their population and the physical environment, primarily the river Loire itself." The Mission Val de Loire is associated with UNESCO as an operative structure: http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/426/ . This organisation says who is part or not part of the Val de Loire WHS. The Château de Montsoreau being the only one to have been built in the riverbed at the Renaissance has been delivered the right to use its own dedicated logo mentioning it is part of the Val de Loire WHS. Thank you in advance to reconsider your choice of removing it from the Val de Loire WHS. All my best, Philippe49730--Philippe49730 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is within the Val de Loire WHS. Nevertheless, the château is not itself a UNESCO site. Emeraude (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emeraude, Thank you very much to agree the Château de Montsoreau is within the Val de Loire WHS. What I wanted to point in an encyclopedic attitude is that the Loire Valley has been listed for 3 criterions. 2 of the 3 criterions are directly connected to Architectural matters, meaning that it is not only a landscape WHS. I could ask and add on wikipedia commons the logo given by the UNESCO, proving the château de Montsoreau is part of the Val de Loire WHS, if you wish so. Thank you again for your answer. All my best, Philippe49730--Philippe49730 (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC) I found a practical example to work with : the Château de Chambord was listed in the 80s as a WHS, and thanks to such buildings, the Val de Loire WHS has been created. It has been included in the Val de Loire WHS in 2000. Does this mean that it is not anymore a WHS? as its previous classification has been canceled by the new one. This example is just illustrating the fact the Val de Loire has been listed as a WHS thanks to its natural landscapes, but also and merely thanks to architecture. Practically the UNESCO is considering Chambord as a WHS, as it is considering a WHS all the major Renaissance castles of the Loire Valley, reason why the Val de Loire WHS has been created. All my very best, Philippe49730--Philippe49730 (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]