User talk:Cote d'Azur

And another friendly reminder for the same thing. 82.132.226.208 (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note your recent edits. As you have changed the capitalisations in only part of the article, please urgently revisit and make the necessary changes throughout the article to ensure consistency. The article is at FAC, and the inconsistencies you have introduced may be prejudicial. Tim riley talk 09:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt action on the above point. Are you planning to change the titles of the articles on La fauvette du temple, Le bourgeois de Calais, Le mari de la reine, Le chevalier d'Harmental, Les p'tites Michu, and La petite fonctionnaire? Tim riley talk 11:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. No, I am not going to change the titles of the articles, but thought that in a featured article the titles should be correct. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your further detailed attentions. It is reassuring to know that the article finds editors who think it worth attending to. Tim riley talk 20:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and congratulations on a well-written article. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cote d'Azur. Please can I ask about your reason for replacing the image of the Northern Facade of Stockholm Palace? The previous image gave a clearer picture of the facade, as there were fewer obstructions blocking the view of it. The newer image is obstructed by the flag poles. Was there a particular reason for replacing this image? If not, I'll change it back to the original image. CLW (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new picture is clearer and the flags are decorative but you are welcome to improve the pictures as you deem necessary. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you read

Please see this:https://government.ae/en/about-the-uae/the-uae-government/government-leaders/h-h-sheikh-mohammed-bin-rashid-al-maktoum —Cote d'Azur (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. Thanks. 82.132.226.208 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rollback request. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation, Doc James! —Cote d'Azur (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Cote d'Azur! Sorry I got to this late and now can't find the rollback request discussion. Worse, I'm really not sure what the answer is to your question!!! In official communications (press releases, websites etc), the rulers of the UAE are given as Ruler of Dubai, Ruler of Sharjah etc. However, Wikipedia has a real problem with 'honorifics', so doesn't like the UAE form of title (His Highness Sheikh Mohammed etc) and may not like to capitalise Ruler - yet Elizabeth II is Queen of the UK with a capital, which would tend to suggest a cap is appropriate for Ruler of Dubai, Sharjah, Abu Dhabi, Umm Al Quwain, Ajman, Ras Al Khaimah and Fujairah.

If that helps? :\ Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it helps a lot and thank you for the clarification. You confirm the information on the official website of the UAE Government. Greetings from the Côte d'Azur, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up after me. I try not to make too much mess... :) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome, and no mess at all, on the contrary, well-informed, interesting work. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cote d'Azur,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Outline of Barcelona for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Barcelona.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Music Barnstar
		Thanks for your continued and extensive edits to pages of all sorts related to music, especially in the realm of composers. Keep up the good work! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed, Captain Eek! —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SearchSuite.js is easy peasy.

To install SearchSuite, create a page called

User:Cote d'Azur/Common.js

and put this line in it:

importScript("User:The Transhumanist/SearchSuite.js");

Then save.

The program provides 5 menu items when search results are showing. To see what a menu item does, just click on it.

Sincerely,

TT

Interesting, thank you. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Outline of Cairo
• Outline of Barcelona
• Outline of Rio de Janeiro
• Outline of Edinburgh
• Outline of Stockholm
• Outline of Dubai
• Outline of Sydney
• Outline of Kyoto
• Outline of Geneva
• Outline of Dresden
• Outline of Prague
• Outline of Saint Petersburg
• Outline of Vienna
• Outline of Munich
• Outline of Athens

That's a nice assortment of destinations.

Lookin' for your next stop, eh?

Some major yet interesting cities missing from the outline list include:

• Outline of Casablanca
• Outline of Alexandria
• Outline of Auckland
• Outline of New Orleans
• Outline of Venice
• Outline of Mecca
• Outline of Cape Town
• Outline of Lucknow
• Outline of Santo Domingo

Wherever you go, have fun!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cape Town and Alexandria look interesting. Never been there, though. However, I visited all the ones which have outlines by me except Cairo and Dubai. See you at the next stop, Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I live in Cape Town, and would like to know your reasons for some recent deletions. See Talk:Outline of Cape Town. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Cote d'Azur, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Meatsgains(talk) 01:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you very much, Meatsgains, and best wishes for a happy New Year!

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

a time for thanks and praise

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and thank you for the message. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Geography Barnstar
		For all your valuable contributions to the articles of Persian Gulf countries, and particularly for fixing some of my mistakes and making the changes that I was too lazy to do myself. Cheers! Elspamo4 (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed, most gratefully received. Your fine work acted as a spur to me. Cheers, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cote d'Azur! Could you help me understand why you've made a bunch of recent edits removing categories from social dance and related articles? I looked through some of them, and in many cases the categories you removed seem like they'd be highly pertinent to the article and their removal cannot be explained by the article already belonging to a sub-category. Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sdkb. The categories I edited are: Social dance, Partner dance, Contra dance, Square dance, English folk dance, English folk music, and Tango dance. I removed from them articles about British Reality TV shows, goddesses of the seasons, genres of pop music from Cambodia, Cornish words, annual weekend festivals, nonprofit organizations, and a theatre because these are not dances and therefore they belong in other categories. Cheers, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I interpret it, the categories of social dance or contra dance pertain to the concept of those activities, more broadly construed, not to the actual act of dancing; otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for things like contra dance bands to be nested in the contra dance category. At the very least, I would assume that anyone following the contra dance category would be interested in paying attention to the nonprofit that promotes contra dancing or one of the largest contra dancing events in the U.S. Are you aware of any WP policies that define categories in the way you seem to be interpreting them? Otherwise, my inclination would be to revert your edits. - Sdkb (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just checked the pages history and have seen how you've enhanced and improved the page since February 19 - great job! Thanks for this expansion. It has given anyone searching, researching, or interested in the cultural subject of dance an accurate alphabetical overview of Wikipedia's collection. Very cool. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your contributions, too, for which I thank you in return. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for the information regarding templates that you have provided. Sorry I did not thank you earlier, I've been very busy in real life and did not proceed with the template creation for now. I will create a side bar template when I am more available. Regardless, thank you for the information. --Wikiemirati (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome, and thank you for creating the template. Best regards, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Awarded to all editors who contributed to creating such a fine article on the Notre-Dame de Paris fire so quickly. Well done! Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello, just looking for an explanation as to why you undid my recent edit on

Hello, the intentions were good but the result brought no improvement to the article. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate? I'm trying to make a genuine contribution to the article by correcting what I see as an inconsistency in formatting between the two large tables of which most of the article consists, and also by adding images and making other minor improvements to style wherever it seems they are necessary. I'd love to get the opinions of other editors, but responses like "the result brought no improvement" are obviously not specific enough to be of any use. What, specifically, would constitute an improvement to the article, in your opinion? If you believe the formatting of the tables should simply remain the way it is now, saying that explicitly would be a huge help. —PJsg1011 (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the width of your table; it ruins the layout of the page. Please try to edit the content by keeping the old format. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what width you're referring to – the widths of the individual columns or the width of the table as a whole – but, at least in my browser, the formatting changes I introduced appear extremely subtle relative to the current revision. If you were more specific I'd have a better idea of your perspective. I can certainly see how the Common names column I created would initially be unappealing, but ultimately the intended effect was to produce something that looks consistent with the upper table; maybe I'll try to adjust the upper table instead, so that the common names are not in their own column but in the Description column, as with the lower table. In any case the inconsistency bugs me, as well as the fact that the relevant info about each plant's toxicity appears only after an often very long list of common names in the Description column, buried in the middle of the paragraph rather than immediately accessible to the reader. In the future I'll make more effort to test the layout in a number of different browsers, but I believe the existing layout is problematic enough that I intend to continue to test various formatting changes to one or the other table in an effort to find some compromise. Feel free to revert if you don't agree, but please try to share some more detailed explanations and/or suggestions so that a compromise can be reached sooner. –PJsg1011 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the width of the table. I edited the column widths and now the two tables look consistent in my browser (latest Mozilla version). What do they look like in your browser? —Cote d'Azur (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, nice work! I typically use Chrome for editing. My apologies again for rushing to reformat without checking compatibility across browsers. Thanks for being willing to incorporate my changes and find a solution! Also, good catch on transposing the Scientific and Common names columns in the upper table.

Now I'm considering dropping the "Commonly known as..." etc. phrasing from the Common names in the lower table, perhaps also the bold type, if only to be consistent with the upper – what do you think? As for the few remaining missing images, I'm aware that some of these species are so exotic or obscure that decent images specifically featuring their poisonous parts simply do not exist on Wikimedia. Adding those may ultimately require searching public-domain sources elsewhere on the web. —PJsg1011 (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked! Harmonising the tables is a good idea and your changes are welcome. The existing pictures took a lot of effort to collect. Concerning the rest of the pictures, they are missing because they do not exist or are not good enough to use in this article. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we are the archivists at Lombard Odier in Geneva and wanted to improve the article relating to the bank, which is in a horrendous state. We proposed a new version on the talk page, and the editor who replied to us kindly suggested we see with people from the Wikiproject Switzerland, where your user name is listed (we since also made a first round of improvements and fixed some formatting issues). The text is a translation of the French article, but we would nevertheless appreciate any comment or suggestion (or corrections!). We have also been trying to upload archives (mostly XIXth century illustrations) on Wikimedia Commons, but the upload seems to have failed for some reason.

Thank you very much in advance for your help, Hello at LO (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for the message. I will take a look at the article and see if I can help. Greetings to

Côte d'Azur. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Cote d'Azur, thank you for your email (I hope you don't mind me answering here). I don't spend much time here at the moment, so cannot really help you. I haven't looked at the article you mentioned, but I can give you some general advice. You don't need to be an admin to review an article (or accept proposed changes to an article): read the draft, and if it looks good, you can make the changes. If there were comments (e.g. on a previous version of the draft, or because a maintenance template had been added to the article), make sure they are addressed before you approve the changes or remove the template... otherwise, indicate your concerns on the draft... and that should be it ! Hope this helps, Schutz (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it helps indeed and thank you for the advice. Best regards, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great ! The bottom line is "if the requested changes look legitimate to you and contribute to article quality, feel free to implement them". If you do this, you can not really be wrong. All the best, Schutz (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will try, and many thanks for the encouragement. With best wishes, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cote d'Azur,

Thanks for creating List of 2015 ballet premieres! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that

Please add your references (

WP:SourceList

).

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your review! Do you think it would be better if I posted my request on the WikiProject Switzerland before we move your corrected text into article mainspace? Greetings from Geneva, Hello at LO (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the old article with the new, very good version is worth every effort. With best wishes, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your edit to the Insect Hotel page because, in adding your photos, you are inadvertently deleting two others. Instead of reverting your edit again, I'll insert your photos correctly for you. Many thanks Obscurasky (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy#Template:WikiProject Italy. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning these out. Ideally Category:Architecture of India, which they all seem to have, should go as well... Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Will take out the Category:Architecture of India as well, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Actually, Category:Caves containing pictograms in India will almost never be right for these either ("Caves containing pictograms.." is one of the worst CFD renamings). That's for Lascaux cave paintings etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, you do not understand the

There is nothing wrong with the gallery. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with it: it doesn't comply with the image use policy. What is your difficulty in understanding that policy? Are you aware of it? Have you read it? Numerical advantage (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your spammy vandalism is getting ridiculous. Stop it. Numerical advantage (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather pointless to come here and dictate to me. Galleries are not forbidden and therefore restoring them is not "spammy vandalism", not even "disruptive editing". —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at

Hi Cote d'Azur, just a heads up, that IP ended up being the same LTA as Numerical advantage and is now blocked. If you notice the same type of behaviour from another editor, you may want to file an SPI. S0091 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S0091, and thank you for the message. When Numerical advantage was blocked in December 2019, the same user returned, operating from the following IPs: 178.101.129.247, 2A02:C7F:D851:DF00:590E:DF33:7580:BCAB, 2A02:C7F:D851:DF00:512B:F006:CAFD:28DE, 109.144.211.69, 46.208.152.55, and 51.7.23.30 Thank you for noticing him at Zaryadye Park. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's whack-a-mole with these LTAs, Cote d'Azur. S0091 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. FYI, boldface can be used not just for the subject of the article, but also for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section ... for example, subtopics of the article's topic. See

Hi, can I ask why you undid the 4 lines I added to the article "Krak des Chevaliers" on 2020.02.20 five minutes after I added them?78.191.7.160 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, because the reference cannot be checked directly. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would not appear to violate any wikipedia guidelines, where the principle of verifiability specifies that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". The four lines I added are hardly likely to be challenged; and they are attributed to a "reliable, published source" (France's most prestigious scholarly journal of Middle East history). I can provide a link to the table of contents of the issue where the article appears (https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=issue&journal_code=JA&issue=2&vol=307); out of very understandable copyright questions the article is not freely available to non registered users. (A draft of the article is, however, available on academia.edu). Surely that is not wikipedia's standard for authority, that only clickable links on Internet constitute authority. I fail to see how merely removing without comment 4 lines referring to new scholarly research on an important period in the Krak des Chevalier's history has rendered the article better.78.191.7.160 (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it to your discretion. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You changed to the second spelling as more French in the article Architecture of Paris. I checked Le Grand Dictionnaire Hachette-Oxford (2007), as well as WordReference.com, where both spellings are given for French. I also noticed that Christiane Aulanier's French book has the title: La salle des Caryatides (BnF Notice bibliographique), and she uses this spelling throughout. Also, check this Louvre web page (French language version): Histoire du Louvre - La salle des Caryatides. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will have a look. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't work out if O Spiritual Pilgrim should be italicized or not! I know songs aren't but compositions, but operas are though. Help! I want to add ""'s to the Holst compositions list if yea. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The title enclosed in quotation marks looks good, and in the list of compositions you can leave it as it is. Thank you for a nice new article, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you undid my revision to Template:Cultural appreciation, and wrote down 'ce' for the summary. What does it mean? 70.122.40.201 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ce is an abbreviation for "copyedit", please have a look at this. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks 70.122.40.201 (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can understand that you undid my edit in Arcadi Volodos because the background is difficult to explain in very few words (although I tried to explain a bit more since someone else undid one of my other edits). The source that I have deleted had been added to the article by an IP that is currently blocked globally because he included hundreds of (fake) references in various language versions of wikipedia, all with the obvious goal to get more views of his own article. You may also have a look into my user talk for more details. Best wishes --Barbasca (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, the book exists, now it is necessary to find page 51. Regards, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cote d'Azur,

Barbasca (talk · contribs) is referring to widespread citation/reference spam by a banned IP on a number of international Wikis. The book 88 notes pour piano solo is used as a ref 431 times on en.wiki alone, and for that reason I've advised Barbasca to take this to WikiProject Spam and ask for advice there. With such widespread international ref spamming it may well be appropriate to delete these refs wholesale and regardless.

Best, == Peter NYC (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter NYC, I would like to check the ref before discarding it. Best, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cote d'Azur,

Absolutely, and let us know what you find, please. If you look at

Emanuel Macron

the book is a ref for both Macron playing the piano, and that he attended Amiens Conservatory. In other languages the book is a secondary or tertiary ref for this fact.

BTW, I got the number of pages where the book is referenced in en.Wiki wrong, it is 211 times. However, if you go down just the first page, it is surprising how often "p. 51" appears. That list of 211 entries likely tells you more than it does me. If the book is a worthwhile reference, then it should continue to be listed. I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm simply allergic to spam unless it comes in a can.

Best, == Peter NYC (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this needs checking (I, too, noticed that page 51 appears very often). We should also wait and see what the WikiProject Spam has to say, then we will know more... —Cote d'Azur (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say its creator was a rather nasty sock whose sockmaster is making legal threats at Commons. I CU blocked him. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you very much for letting me know. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that every page of the Manual of Style says this at the top:

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

What this means is that, unlike Wikipedia policies, MoS is not mandatory. Further several arbitartion cases have established without a doubt that editing to enforce MoS is not an exception to the policies against WP:edit warring.

Please stop changing the position of the image on

Ok, then let Hans Posse appear to be looking off the page. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've looked at this list recently. Do you have any opinion on the choice and order of the columns in the list ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but I will take a serious look at it. What is your opinion on this list, please? —Cote d'Azur (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you have modified the lead in several articles that are lists of compositions by classical music composers, specifically by changing this:

This is a list of compositions by Alexander Scriabin.

to this:

This is a list of compositions by Alexander Scriabin.

resulting in the link to the parent composer biography article being in bold. This is strictly prohibited by MoS: no links in bold. This applies to the lead as well as the main text. The way the text stood before was acceptable under MoS, which states that it's okay to quote only part of the page title in the first sentence of the lead.

There have been a lot of arguments, actually out-and-out bloody fights with several people getting severely injured, over this dumb issue in the classical music composition lists. That list project consensus in the past has been to make all lists consistent with "list of compositions" in bold, followed by "by" non-bold and then the composer name wiki-linked but not bold. You would do best to not tamper with this style.

I see you have changed quite a few of them, mostly last December, around Christmas day, and nobody's corrected them. Perhaps you could go through and revert your edits please, as it's a lot of trouble for us to do it. In any case, don't do any more links in bold, on any pages because it does violate MoS. TheUnamedUser (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you returned the picture that I changed in Largo, Sofia. The picture that you returned is outdated and does not reflect the current state of the square. Regards. Gerg2013 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the new picture in the most relevant section. Cheers, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Gerg2013 (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and greetings to Idstein. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for your edits to this article. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and thank you for your contributions to it. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your edits. I was once a very prolific editor. I lived in Avignon for 12 years until 2000. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how could you leave Avignon? Such a nice place! I live near Cannes and could never leave... Thank you for the edits to the French Riviera and greetings from there, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! I left to take up an invitation to work at a university in Bangkok, and I've been in Thailand ever since. The Provence (especially Avignon) is the best place I ever lived. Best climate (except for the Mistral), extraordinary geodiversity, and the world's best wine and food. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mistral is a problem even here in winter, but it clears the air pollution. Do you still play the piano? —Cote d'Azur (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is better about section headers titled "List" and "Destroyed arches" versus headers titled "Remaining arches" and "Destroyed arches"? "List" is in the title of the article and doesn't describe the section contents or what distinguishes them from the other list in the other section. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Remaining arches" looks odd. Apart from that, the title "List" is always used in list artcles. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is always used? Of the 28 list articles in Template:Ancient Roman architecture lists, only one uses "List" as a section header and that is excused by that article having just a single section, unlike this one. List of Roman triumphal arches has two lists in separate sections, but only one is being called "List". If we follow the pattern of the other list articles, neither section should. The section headers should describe their contents in a way that distinguishes them from the other sections in the article. If you would rather change the section header to something other than "Remaining arches", that's fine with me, but "List" is insufficient. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first section header to "Existing arches", if that looks less odd to you. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October

Some apples left for you, with thanks for all the music. See my talk today for an expressive image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is very kind of you. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ferrero operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your help with Jerome Kohl! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and happy WP anniversary to you, too. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... proud today of a pic I took --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and today of Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and today, back to the beginning, Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long time ago, you - and Jerome - helped with Kammermusik (Hindemith) - look again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, indeed. Thank you for your contributions. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a student project, I only fixed, and added a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening

My problem with this image is, that there are two images of one thing - Saxon Switzerland. One should be enough. I would be very pleased, if you can stop ignoring half of the reasons I gave you. Of course, it has something to with the economy, but this place is already mentioned in tourism. That should be enough.

Thank you! --

Good evening. The two pictures illustrate two different things and are in different sections. This is not forbidden. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jerome Kohl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jerome Kohl, a music theorist of the University of Washington, was recognized internationally as an authority on the composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, publishing a book on his Zeitmaße in 2017? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jerome Kohl. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jerome Kohl), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is, it's not a fake. [2] --Generale Lee (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same picture (the feather is missing). —Cote d'Azur (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really think our readers won't understand that "Orchestral" means "Orchestral music"??? Why "Related articles" instead of "Related", how could they be anything but "articles"? Why the clunky "Named for so and so" when a single word "namesakes" suffices? You inability to provide edit summaries or substantial reasoning in your knee jerk reverts is extremely rude and in bad faith. Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are no improvement. Cote d'Azur (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to address anything I've said. Your edits are no improvement per my earlier comment. Please see

WP:COMPETENCE, it is clear that you should not be editing templates. Aza24 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I created this template and JK accepted it, so why are you changing it to "Chamber", etc.? What is "Chamber", is that clear and elegant? Cote d'Azur (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a reader can't understand that "Chamber" refers to "Chamber music" in the context of "Piano" "Orchestral" and "Opera" then they will not understand "Chamber music" either. Listen, I'm sure that with your "100,000" edits and ten years here you feel comfortable mass reverting me with no edit summary and not moving beyond your "no improvement" comment until 40 minutes later, but guess what, it's extremely uncivil and unproductive, two traits which you've demonstrably mastered. Aza24 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for fixing the info on the photo I posted of a Torri or traditional Japanese gate. I am really grateful. Cheers, and all best wishes, John Hill (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and thank you for your contributions to it. Greetings to Australia from the real

Côte d'Azur. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and best regards, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

In the Philhellenism article, I added David Lloyd George, as a notable Philhellenist with a source from a Greek internet newspaper. However, a technical problem appears about the date, which I could not fix, because I do not understand the problem. Can you check it and fix it?

Thank you in advance, and yours sincerely, 31.200.14.90 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Cote d'Azur (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing it. 31.200.14.90 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, can you comment on the merger proposal for this article?

I will comment here, if you don’t mind. I think that both Vulnerable narcissism and Grandiose narcissism are important topics and should have their own, stand alone articles, perhaps under different titles (Covert and Overt). —Cote d'Azur (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is that Wikipedia has many overlapping articles on Narcissism. Narcissism and Narcissistic personality disorder cover the same subject matter.

After reading most of the many sub articles it seems to me that they are serving more to confuse than enlighten. Many articles lack context.

Wikipedias's Borderline Personality Disorder article is possibly a good model to follow for NPD.

It's something for us all to think about.

Thanks for your time and comments. Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I will take a look at the Borderline personality disorder article and reflect upon your comments. Thank you, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this category also contains Mesomedes. Do you have any suggestions as to ensure the hymns solely discussed on the pages of these individuals remain accessible through categories if they are not meant to be included in this kind of category? Maybe a category for hymnographers could be created. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question, I will have a look. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Mesomedes from the category and will think about the rest. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have been of help. I think there's a Byzantine hymnographer category that could be a model for how to deal with this.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. —07:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with my Edinburgh Festival articles! Kleinzach 14:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and thank you in return for your well-written contributions. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on prehistoric UK articles: typically chambered cairns, old churches and assorted tombs. I noticed the "List of Oldest Buildings in Scotland" article. The lede looks like it needs a re-write. I am wondering if tombs should be included in a "list of buildings" or should they have their own article, given the definition of a building in the current lede? Should the List be re-named "List of Oldest Structures in Scotland"?

Who would be the best to decide that? An archaeologist, a senior editor like yourself who has contributed to the article? Lots of questions. No answers. I would love to get your opinion on the article and I can work on cleaning up dead links if needed. MauraWen (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about "List of oldest buildings and structures in Scotland"? I will think about this. Starting a discussion on the article's talk page may generate useful input... Cote d'Azur (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of "senate" and "republic" is very inconsistent across Wikipedia articles. I don't really care one way or the other (though with a mild preference for "senate" because that is what most modern books -- that I have encountered -- on the topic use; see also this on-going discussion). Citing Roman Senate is not dispositive: "senate" outnumbers "Senate" in that article anyway (69 to 37 according to senate[\. ,] vs Senate[\. ,]). I'd just prefer that edits not introduce inconsistencies. Ifly6 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care either, but in the Roman Senate and Roman Republic articles the words "Senate" and "Republic" are capitalised. If this is inexact, then the two articles should be edited to reflect the correct capitalisation. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both are "correct" capitalisations, in as much as "correct" is defined as "usage among at least a few classical studies scholars published within the last 30 years". That's why I'm advocating for within-article consistency. Ifly6 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the

Caesar's Civil War article there is (within-article) consistency now. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I have been trying to verify a part of the Scarab (artifact) article. Under the section "Funerary Scarabs" in the last paragraph, you cite John Ward's book The Sacred Beetle: A Popular Treatise on Egyptian Scarabs in Art and History. Unfortunately, I cannot find this information anywhere in that book. Do you happen to know where in the book you got the information listed? EriktheFriendlyOperaGhost (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)EriktheFriendlyOperaGhost[reply]

In the "Funerary scarabs" section I only italicised the Book of the Dead. It is User:Hadden who added that reference on 3 March 2016. As he is absent since November last year, I suggest you ask on the article's talk page and the Ancient Egypt experts may be able to answer. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for reverting it to city. I did not notice that one of the IPs had actually fixed it to town, since you reverted it from town to commune and all edits were by the same /64 range.
I'll pay more attention next time. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:21D9:DCEA:CAAC:2DF6 (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think nothing of it, and thanks for the message. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to do a minor update on the numbers and figured I should make a little friendly handwave. Hope you are doing well! Best, Hello at LO (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for the message, I call it very kind of you to think of it. The update looks good. Nice to hear from you, Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and best regards. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't resist... Haploidavey (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, absolutely *amazing* edit summary! —Cote d'Azur (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think this move was a mistake. The lower-case is obviously correct in French (though I believe that is changing), but not in English usage of the French name of the breed, as is clear from the English-language sources in the page (the Canadian Kennel Club, the Fogle source etc.). Would you care to revert it? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me think about it and do a research. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Some possible food for thought:

• Google Scholar: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
• Internet Archive books
• [Bruce Fogle] (2013). The Dog Encyclopedia. London; New York: Dorling Kindersley.
  ISBN 9781465408440
  , page 343
• Tamsin Pickeral (2014). Dogs Unleashed. San Diego: Thunder Bay Press.
  ISBN 9781626860681
  , page 58
• Anne Rogers Clark, Andrew H. Brace (1995). The International Encyclopedia of Dogs. Howell Book House.
  ISBN 0876056249
  , page 146
• American Kennel Club
• Canadian Kennel Club

Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am sorry to bother you, but I got a thank you from you - which was very nice - for creating this article, which was not done recently, which made me wonder, and the article that is present on that diff is not the current article by that title, which just made me confused. Can you tell me what's going on? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thanked you for creating that article. If the article by that title is not the current one, then where is the current one, please? —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thank you! And you're welcome! This article has been redone three times in an effort to respond to various critiques. It's here: [3] In this version I attempted to focus on the sociology more, but it doesn't seem well organized to me. I am a bit at a loss over it, so the thank you was really nice to get. Anything you feel like contributing would be appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are before and after screen captures:

https://picknit.com/Clipboard01.jpg

https://picknit.com/Clipboard02.jpg

-- Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the third picture because it is of low quality (unclear and overexposed) and aligned the other two with the text. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cote d'Azur:,

I’m LizziePEP, an employee of Pacific Equity Partners, an Australian alternative investment firm. You can find out a little more about me and my COI/paid editor status at User:Lizzie PEP.

About four months ago, I submitted what I hope other editors will find to be an appropriate update to the Pacific Equity Partners article. It’s been some time since I submitted the request, and haven’t heard anything back from other editors regarding it.

I’ve been in touch with other notable Wiki editors with varying success. Some haven’t had the time or inclination to help, and others have provided useful feedback. At the request of editor DGG, I have also compiled a full revision of the article in a sandbox within my user space.

I notice you’ve been involved in article improvements in the past, and would like to enquire whether you have the time to look over my submission and provide feedback.

Thanks very much. Lizzie PEP (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the article and it looks good. I also put it on my Watchlist and will keep an eye on it. Greetings to Australia, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cote d'Azur, thank you very much for your prompt response. Really appreciate the positive feedback and for putting this article on your Watchlist. Might you have any advice as to how I might speed up the response time on my edit request? It has been almost 6 months since it has been submitted. I was expecting to have to wait, however it seems i haven't made any progress. Greetings from Australia to you, Lizzie PEP (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article already exists. Make the changes you deem necessary directly on that page. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cote d'Azur, thank you very much for the advice. I will implement the changes directly on the page shortly. Much appreciated. Lizzie PEP (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Update slowly using a neutral tone and give good references for claims. I'll keep my eyes open, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the advice, I may have bitten off too much too quickly, but will update the page in smaller steps hereon. Thanks Lizzie PEP (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy New Year!

Cote d'Azur,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Moops, and best wishes for a happy New Year in return. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came across an outline that knocked my socks off.

It's an extension of outlines on a couple countries (Russia and Ukraine), and since you are into regional outlines, I thought you might like to see it:

Outline of the Russo-Ukrainian War

I found it very useful for navigating the information Wikipedia has on the subject.    — The Transhumanist   12:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, indeed. I added it to my Watchlist and will keep an eye on it. Thank you and happy New Year! —Cote d'Azur (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The Pearl Qatar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pearl Qatar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— The Anome (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For years I have contributed to English Wikipedia with high resolution photos. They must have some encyclopedic value and good quality, because about 85 of them have been promoted here to

I disagree with you replacing perfectly good pictures (in some cases "featured picture" and "picture of the day" [4]) with your own pictures which are not better. Your edits are not disruptive but they bring no improvement. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you on this one. I did not remove JJ-s featured picture from article, it's good and it's still there. But my photo has imo higher EV, because of huge resolution difference. And it has great potential to be promoted as FP.--Ivar (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a year or so (and after it had ended up in an archive :-( ) I just discovered that you had dedicated a barnstar to me, and even with a dedication in French! Thank you very much for the honour you do me: our paths on wikipedia often cross, and I too appreciate the work you do. A la prochaine, Alex2006 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ended up in an archive? You found it after one year? Good heavens, I thank my lucky stars for that, better late than never! Thank you for letting me know and à la prochaine. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ces accents en français, je ne les apprendrai jamais... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem: the French accents are a riddle beyond my reading. Moreover, to be able to write them one needs an AZERTY keyboard. My keyboard is QWERTY... —Cote d'Azur (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article on Schloss Lagerfeld, I'd be delighted if you can think of anything to add to it! No Swan So Fine (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very good indeed, except for the second picture which is watermarked. I tried to change it but could not find a good replacement. Do you want to keep it? —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate, as it is such a great image. It is unobtrusive when viewing on mobile, so I guess it'll stay. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've found another famous villa vigie! No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon @

Done —Cote d'Azur (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @

Pope Paul III and his Grandsons –[5]– and Diana of Versailles –[6]

– articles without getting community consensus in articles talk pages as stated by Wikipedia's Policy.

Could you please be able to patroll recent changes in both articles, undid suspicious IP reverts and request a temporal protection for them if needed?

Thank you in advance. Yours sincerely. 81.41.175.237 (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will take a look, but this time it will take some time. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii § Campaign to upload Lāhainā photographs.

Dear @Cote d'Azur:, you may remember some interactions we had on the article Pacific Equity Partners late last year. By way of refresher - I'm a COI-disclosed editor suggesting some updates to a page that has become out of date. I left suggested new text in the talk page of the above article last week, and was wondering if you might be able to take a look and provide any feedback. Much appreciated, Lizzie PEP (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Lizzie PEP:, I will take a look, but it will take some time. Greetings from the Côte d'Azur, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cote d'Azur, thank you very much for your kind response. Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks, Lizzie PEP (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The City Outline Barnstar Barrage

is hereby awarded to Cote d'Azur, for the creation of the following multitude of city outlines: Outline of Athens Outline of Istanbul Outline of Prague Outline of Barcelona Outline of Kyoto Outline of Rio de Janeiro Outline of Saint Petersburg Outline of Cairo Outline of Cape Town Outline of Dresden Outline of Dubai Outline of Stockholm Outline of Sydney Outline of Edinburgh Outline of Geneva Outline of Munich Outline of Vienna And for extensive work on: Outline of Rome Outline of Turin I look forward to seeing what you produce next! Thank you. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you have been added to the Outline WikiProject's Hall of Recognition    — The Transhumanist   10:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this unexpected award, greatly appreciated. This is really a good incentive to keep contributing to Wikipedia. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've also been added to the Outlines WikiProject Hall of Recognition.    — The Transhumanist   06:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November songs

my story today

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

P Aculeius (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Robin

}} to your friends' talk pages.

P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a pleasant surprise, i am delighted to hear from you. May your holidays be merry and bright, and hope you have a happy 2024! —Cote d'Azur (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]