User talk:Emeraude

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

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? --

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. --

talk) 16:47, 29 January 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

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]

Hello, Emeraude. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

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

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

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

In context,

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]

There are at least four sentences in this article that are identical to DNB. Either it was directly plagiarized from DNB and this should be indicated, or it was taken from an ODNB that used the DNB text that is now in the public domain, and it absolutely must be indicated that the text (immediately from ODNB) is public domain because it first appeared in DNB. To suggest that it doesn't need to be attributed to the public-domain DNB because it is actually a WP:COPYVIO of a non-public-domain ODNB isn't really a viable solution to the problem. Agricolae (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I m definitely not looking to pick a fight here. If you can find a secondary source for Davies' racism, I will happily include it. I am no fan of racists. All I'm trying to do is reduce the extent to which we send people to racist websites to read examples of racism, rather than sending them to reliable sources to read about the racism on racist websites. I understand your point, and if this was an uncontroversial statement on his onw website about something like rose growing or what cars he likes, it would be fine, but it's not, it's linking him to something that is potentially harmful to his personal and professional reputation. And if we ae going to show im to be a racist, I want the most robust source possible. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more about sending people to racist websites. However, to leave all of this out because they are the sources is to let him get away with it, which is much worse. Whether or not it is "potentially harmful to his personal and professional reputation" is not our concern; he made these choices and must live them. Let the reader decide if his actions casts him in a bad light. We have not linked him to these people; he did, quite voluntarily and knowingly.

I'll look for other sources, but I'm not hopeful. Why would reliable sources like the quality press cover minor lawyers attending racist organisations' meetings? Emeraude (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you reverted by addition of this article to the list of castles in France. Before adding it, I check the original French article from which it’s clear that it is actually a castle and not just a chateau. For example its role in the wars of religion is described. I believe it qualifies to be included in the last. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that as well and the Ministry of Culture entry. I wasn't sure that it had actually been a castle rather than just a fortified structure. (The Ministry says, "Le château servait de sentinelle à la forteresse de Biron.") Neither French Wikipedia nor the Ministry specifically say it was a castle, regardless of its role as a garrison during the Wars of Religion. It's one of those borderline case; put it back if you think it's right. I will try to find more detailed information elsewhere. Emeraude (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks I've done that now.Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent some time searching various French historical archives and found nothing of use. Will keep looking. Emeraude (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it still remains dubious. I'm surprised that finding any information is so difficult. The best I have found is "cet ancien repaire noble" (this old noble den); "le château servait de sentinelle (the château was used as sentinel); "fortin avancé du Château de Biron" (advance fort of the Château de Biron). Lots on the inhabitants and the later additions, i.e. most of what still exists, but nothing to say definitively that this was a castle. Emeraude (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason of this edit [7]? The reference had a good descriptive name. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've now noticed you changed 3 reference names into something completely uncomprehensible. "JV1", "JV2", "JV3"? Are you a bot? --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original ref names were also incomprehensible and also unweildy. Best to keep them short, not to almost repeat the detail of the reference in the name.
JV1 (Je Veux ref 1) is much simpler. Emeraude (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_cURk4gsCGjmy98x&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About this: [8]. No, it's not easier to read. As a person who created this article and who is to likely return and expand it a bit in the future, I'm not supposed to remember what "JV1`", "JV2" and "JV3" mean. I need descriptive ref names. Please leave bot-like and bot-friendly edits to bots. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then report me! I made an edit with explanation. YOU reverted, asking the reason. I gave it again and reinstated. Two reverts does not constitute an edit war or anything like. You do not need such long names. It is not your article and anyone can edit and improve it; I found the ref names incomprehensible. Emeraude (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks like someone else has already blocked them. I was told that these IPs are socks of Haiyenslna. Hut 8.5 10:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, it seems my page was reverted even while I was messaging you. Not a clue what this is about? Emeraude (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess is as good as mine, I'm afraid. Hut 8.5 15:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please try to improve the page rather than revert it. It was full of self published references, long winded and inaccurate. If you can improve then please, improve. But don't revert to a worse version. If this is a bout the criminal and neo Nazi claims, they are well established and mentioned in all the source material.

..please say it --Koppadasao (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write a load of bollocks, do it elsewhere. Emeraude (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced material is not bollocks. Referring to Rebel Media is quite acceptable, even if some leftists hate them--Koppadasao (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Uk government has lynched ..." = bollocks. Emeraude

Referring to rebel is one thing, claiming it is a reliable source is not. (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Then reply and state your opinion, don’t delete what you don’t like. That’s the action of cowards. --Koppadasao (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did delete and gave a reason, not an opinion. Emeraude (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your “statement”, as you call it, was an act of a coward. Just as the lynching of Tommy Robinson is the act of a cowardice government. I won’t be replying again, as the topic is already discussed to its end.--Koppadasao (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this guy another warning for his edit at Talk:United Kingdom. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ealdgyth#The vandalisation of my talk page by Doug Weller. Nice to se you parted as equals. :) Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE this (no issue with the edit itself) - Buzz Feed News is actually not a dubious source these days - check RSN (I will note that this gag being in the UK has lots of media orgs in a pickle - anyone with a UK office (all the majors) has an issue with breaking the gag). As for the use of "gang rape" vs. "grooming" - it is more of a US vs. UK thing - "grooming" is something that sounds rather odd in this context to an American, while it is in wide use in the UK. Buzz Feed is writing to an American audience.Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to your greater knowledge of Buzz; however, their article does contain a number of errors, as is evident from reading the other sources. The "gang rape" one is significant though. Emeraude (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emeraude,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened the discussion on the talk-page. You are cordially invited to discuss the addition. Please recall

Already been there. Emeraude (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you commented on the article Empúries or Ampurias - a few quite respectable editors seem to have differing opinions on the issue. The article uses Empúries for its title, but Ampurias in the text. I've opened a section on the talk page to try to reach a consensus on what to do. (I visited Empúries, but not Ampurias :), yesterday). Bdushaw (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell did you put a [citation needed] on the freaking record label of all things on All Alright? That should never need a citation, since the work itself is the source of that information. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's easy to cite isn't it? What I actually did was remove a useless reference and replace it with citation reqd. Take it up with the person who thought a (useless) ref was needed in the first place. Emeraude (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "useless" ref was not useless. It was relevant at the time the link was put in the article -- it was a link to the "new releases" column on MusicRow Magazine's website, and it looks like someone put up the wrong wayback link when archiving. The version that did have the information does not appear to have been put into the Wayback Machine, so I replaced it with a different ref.

Also, I apologize for my outburst. One of my biggest pet peeves is editors who get way too overzealous and slather every sentence of an article with [citation needed] tags. The label of a single release should never need a citation, ever, since the work itself is the source of that information. No one's going to doubt a label, except maybe in certain cases where a label closes partway through a chart run and another label takes over distribution (such as Austin (song), where the body of the article has a citation verifying as such). I've dealt with a certain editor over the years who is incredibly overzealous on such tagging, and this editor has repeatedly given redundant tags to things such as labels (which again, don't freaking need a citation), has put redundant [citation needed]s in discographies when the information is already verified elsewhere on the page, or has put a [citation needed] asking for verification that a song or album in a discography exists when the work in question actually has a page.

I let my dealings with this editor get the best of me when interacting with you, and I apologize for it. Your edit hit upon one of my biggest pet peeves, but you had no way of knowing that, and I had no way of knowing that your edit was in good faith. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are just a few example of sentences where the article is not used:

• "Katoucha Niane, Guinean-born French fashion model (born 1960, Conakry, Guinea—found dead Feb. 28, 2008, Paris, France), became the muse of French designer Yves Saint Laurent in the 1980s." Source: Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Katoucha-Niane [Emphasis added]
• "In 1997 she signed a worldwide modeling contract to become the new face of the American cosmetics company CoverGirl and, in pursuit of a modeling career, relocated to New York City, where she, together with fellow British CoverGirl model Sarah Thomas, was influential in ushering in what is known in the industry as the “English rose look...” Source: Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lucy-Gordon [Emphasis added]

Unless, there is some policy about use of the definite article, then I suspect that you are simply imposing your own personal preferences on an article. Please point me to the section of the Wikipedia Style Guide that claims that use of the definite article is required every time a name is mentioned. BronHiggs (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing other examples of bad grammar is not the way. Encyclopedia Britannica is not a paragon of grammar either, but typical of what is common usage in US journalese. The first example reflects EB's style for the first sentence of an entry so no "the" before Guinean-born, but there should be one before "French". The second passage should read "where she, together with a fellow British CoverGirl model...."; nothing needed before "British". Note there is a definite article before "American". (There should also be a comma after "In 1997" - adjectival clause.) Emeraude (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the question of WP policy. We only have your assertion that the absence of the definite article is bad grammar. But every style manual, I've ever read says that the article denotes specificity, and that when it is clear from the context that reference is being made to a specific person (e.g. when the person is named), the article is optional and is probably best omitted. So, unless there is a specific WP policy that recommends some alternative usage, I would prefer to leave the article as it was in the original. BronHiggs (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the question of WP policy, which makes no mention of this. Ergo, we are left to follow Wikipedia's rules on writing grammatically. We only have your assertion that every MoS you've read says that, or that it applies specifically in this case. The only MoS I can access right now says, "Leaving “the” out often reads like official jargon: say the conference agreed to do something, not “conference agreed”; the government has to do, not “government has to”; the Super League (rugby), not “Super League”. (The Guardian and Observer). Emeraude (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, I am not the one who is trying to change the article. If you want to change things, you need solid reasons for the change. So, far I have not seen any explanation. BronHiggs (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar. Emeraude (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide more than mere assertions, I will change it back to the original, which was grammatically correct. Thanks. BronHiggs (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here follows some commentary from style notes provided by reliable sources:

• "Proper nouns, because they are the names of people or places, are already specific and so do not need to be made more specific by the definite article. So we say “John,” not “the John,” and “Canada,” not “the Canada.” (There are one or two anomalous usages in place names: e.g., “the Netherlands,” but “Holland.”) This rule explains why we say “Boyle’s Law,” not “the Boyle’s Law,” and “Planck’s constant” but not “the Planck’s constant.” " Source: University of Toronto, 'Writing Advice", http://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/definite-article.pdf

• "THE USE OF ARTICLES WITH PROPER NOUNS

Proper nouns refer to specific people, places, and things (Martin Luther King, New York City, St. Patrick's Cathedral). However, even though these nouns are inherently definite, the definite article THE is not used with most SINGULAR proper nouns.

The Susan Brown was considered a troubled woman. (Wrong)

Instead of:

Susan Brown was considered a troubled woman.

(This is also a source of errors, since the use of the definite article with proper nouns is allowed in other languages)

Source: Cuny School of Law, http://www.law.cuny.edu/legal-writing/students/multilingual/grammar/articles.html

I could go on and on, but I do not wish to get into an edit war over the definite article. And, I have never yet met a Wikipedia editor who is willing to back away from editing decisions. Perhaps a third party opinion is the way to proceed? BronHiggs (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting, but rather missing the point. I don't question about any of the examples you have given but none of them reflects the edits I made, which, to recall were as follows (my definite articles in bold):

It was created by the French Orientalist artist, Jacques Majorelle over almost forty years, starting in 1923, and features a Cubist villa designed by the French architect, Paul Sinoir in the 1930s. The property was the residence of the artist and his wife from 1923 until their divorce in the 1950s. In the 1980s, the property was purchased by the fashion designers, Yves Saint-Laurent and Pierre Bergé who worked to restore it.

Now, I have not written "the Jacques Majorelle", "the Paul Sinoir" or "the Yves Saint-Laurent and Pierre Bergé". if I had, you would have a point, but I haven't. Emeraude (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not missing the point at all. That an adjective precedes the proper noun, does not alter the principle. If the the sentence refers to the named individuals, or if the context clearly indicates a reference to a named individual, then the definite article is not used. The style guides that were quoted mention that when an adjective precedes the proper noun, it makes no difference to the principle. I am concerned that an unfortunate precedent could be established here; that the definite article should be used in some cases and not in others, on some kind of purely arbitary basis, depending on whether you approve or not. Clear and consistent guidelines are required, and these are spelled out in various style guides and indeed in other guides not mentioned here because they are not accessible in a digital format. It appears that WP has no policy on this issue. I think that I should seek opinion from a third party. Until then, I will leave your edits in place. BronHiggs (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not an adjective preceding the name. Consider "French Orientalist artist, Jacques Majorelle". What precedes "Jacques Majorelle" is "French Orientalist artist". That's a noun with two qualifying adjectives, i.e. there is a French Orientalist artist whose name is Jacques Majorelle. In this case, the name qualifies the artist, not vice versa. Similarly with "French architect, Paul Sinoir" and "fashion designers, Yves Saint-Laurent and Pierre Bergé". In all three cases the name is preceded by a clause which has the effect of being a noun. Hence the need for a definite article. Emeraude (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered a duplicate translation of

Thanks for the heads-up. I've responded in the discussion. Emeraude (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Henry Bolton (British politician)#Part-time TA course about the information you wish to add as I feel we should have some thoughts on whether or not to include this before we actually decide whether or not to add it. I've not seen that particular thing done before so it should be discussed first. Please feel free to add your thoughts. This is Paul (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts to maintain the standards/quality of the articles appearing on Wikipedia. I was, however, somewhat surprised to find that this article (truth in advertising) I am the subject of the article and I did create it, was selected for deletion. There were some factual errors contributing to this decision, which I think may have swayed you in your decision. First, the number of books sold numbers in the thousands, not just three as noted but one contributor. In addition, a number of editorial reviews radio interviews and television appearances that can be found on my website T.L.-williams.com, make clear this is not simply a vanity exercise. Independent publishers make up a large share of the books published in the U.S annually. Finally to characterize the two writers organizations that have awarded prizes for these books as mere ‘clubs’ is an insult to both organizations. They are two of the most respected writers organizations in the country and annually draw and their award competitions are international.

I have a fourth novel being released in March. I respectfully ask that you re-evaluate your decision and restore this article. Thanks Wmsterry (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my decision. It was the decision of the Wikipedia community. Emeraude (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude - I have noticed you have made multiple edits and continue to edit this page. Some of the comments on this page are libellous and if continue to be made you will be reported to the authorities.

Please present your evidence that the National Liberal Party was founded by ‘Dean Williamson’? Further in the article you contradict this statement by writing ‘the party was found by….Patrick Harrington’ but then omit ‘Dean Williamson’. The original statement is factually incorrect and should you continue to change this edit you will be reported officially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwilliamson85 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So report me. Emeraude (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re this [9]. I initially removed the category for two reasons, mainly because there is no mention anywhere in the article of 'denial' or even of the holocaust and it is meant to be a defining feature of an individual for them to be included in ANY category, and the article text should 'amplify/clarify' why the person is in a category. Secondly, I find your revert reason weak - I appreciate that anyone who is active in any party is very likely to endorse most of the policies of that party, therefore this guy is likely to hold many far-right-wing views, which might very well include 'denial', however

He's not active in the holocaust-denying party. He's its leader. That's a defining feature of him, or are you suggesting that the leader of the BNP is not covered by the defining features of the party he leads? Emeraude (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, I have no wish to 'whitewash' Adam Walker (nor the BNP), and I would not be the slightest bit surprised to discover that he was a 'denier', nor surprised if he held all sorts of views that I, along with most others, find odious and bonkers in almost equal measure.

Having said that, holocaust denial is a feature of BNP, sufficiently prevalent for that org. to rightly be categorised as endorsing/promoting denial - but denial is a very long way from being THE "defining features of the party he leads". The defining feature is a sort of ethnic nationalism, which manifests itself as an antipathy to anyone who is not 'British' ethnically or culturally by their definition. Their biggest antipathy recently has been towards Muslims and European migrants - historically it has been towards other black and brown-skinned people and Jews (in no particular order).

I don't care too much, as already said, about the good name of Adam Walker. I do care however that anyone going to ANY article should find verifiable/verified info about ANY category that the article has been placed in - whether that is innocuous info or not. Otherwise categories fulfil no purpose. Categories aren't meant to be 'badges of shame' or of 'approval', but to lead to specific info as to why/how the person is in that category. In this case, the argument is that BNP supports holocaust denial (largely true, surreptitiously if not openly, certainly some of its members do), he is the chair, therefore he is an active denier. To me that argument has two weaknesses, the first is relatively trivial, which is that no political figure actively endorses EVERY position held by the org. which they lead and it is SYNTH to say "his party does, therefore he does". The second is a WP concern, namely, what useful info about how/when and in what way Walker has been a holocaust denier is conveyed in the article? The only mention of Jews in his article is a sort of faux-tolerant quote from him about a Jew who he claimed wanted to leave the UK because of the Muslims.

In short, the article text should make clear how and when Walker individually has endorsed holocaust denial, otherwise the category doesn't belong. Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So how about adding text to the effect that "Adam Walker is the leader of the holocaust-denying BNP"? Emeraude (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources that describe BNP as denying? As opposed to sources that say some individuals in BNP are deniers. The BNP article says that Tyndall was actively a denier and that BNP has more recently sold denialist literature. I don't think that adds up to BNP = denialist. Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd better remove the tag from the BNP article.... Emeraude (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that was a joke! The BNP has been denialist and the article says how and when and to what degree. All sourced. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add or restore tabloid journalism sources to articles on living people. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And why not? Though some tabloids (Daily Mail for example) are declared by Wikipedia to be unreliable, others may be used with care and that applies here.

WP:SOURCES says that "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." And, to be absolutely pedantic about this, The Times, The Guardian and countless other reliable sources are actually tabloids. Emeraude (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, but that's not what tabloid journalism means. If you're easily confused by this area, it's probably best to stay well clear of it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all confused. I simply question yout assertion that it is tabloid journalism AND that it is the only sourcing. Emeraude (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine;

WP:BLPN is thataway. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Emeraude: I mostly agree with you except bringing up the tabloid format thing. It adds nothing to the discussion, in fact it's the only area I agree with MarchOrDie about. Saying it suggests you don't understand the issues. I mean in this case, the uses (not sure about edit summaries) were all to tabloid journalism and not simply tabloid so it's not even a valid joke to intentionally confuse tabloid journalism and tabloid format. And yes, I say this as someone who has seen such ultimately pointless distractions on the differences in way too many discussions. At least in most of those the person was genuinely confused about the difference between tabloid journalism and sources published in tabloid format. Whereas if I understand your response correctly, you're saying you did understand the difference, so just don't do it, it's pointless and silly. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell. Does no one have a sense of humour or irony any more? Of course I know that tabloid (paper size) is not a synonym for tabloid journalism. It was a rebuff to the insulting assertion that I am easily confused.... Emeraude (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it has spoken, this is not a BLP violation, and the Daily Mirror can be used. If anyone is not happy with this

Which was plainly obvious. Thank you. Emeraude (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emeraude,

I was a bit confused by this edit, the vast majority of which seems to be changing 'access-date' to 'accessdate' in citation templates, as well as 'archive-url' to 'archiveurl' and 'archive-date' to 'archivedate'.

As far as I can see, per Template:Cite news and Help:Citation Style 1#Access_date, 'access-date', 'archive-url' and 'archive-date' are the primary names of these attributes, with 'accessdate', 'archiveurl' and 'archivedate' as aliases.

Even if they weren't, I tend to think that mass changes from one acceptable format to another are unhelpful, because they obscure the real changes when looking at an edit or group of edits (especially when you make substantive changes in the same edit).

I'm assuming a script is involved somewhere - could you perhaps amend the script to not do this in future? TSP (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I guess for consistency, as the article used a mixture of the two formats? Still not sure I'm convinced it's worth it; nor sure why 60 uses of access-date were changed to align with 32 uses of accessdate. TSP (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And there were no substantive changes were there? It was just tidying up and trying to get some consistency.Emeraude (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of encyclopedias using the original verbiage.

Non-periodicals are not italicized (

talk) 15:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not what it says at all. In fact, it specifically states: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or HuffPost)." Hardly surprising, since the "cite web" structure italicises the name of the website! Emeraude (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have altered your reversion to RAF Northolt because it's original operating name was "Northolt Aerodrome", I am from the area and it is still referred to by the old name on occasions.

I have attached a National Achieves link from the Dakota incident to verify this - hope this helps.

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C575337

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used to live right next to it, and later under the descent path! "Northolt Aerodrome" is what I and everyone I know always call it. Not that is its official title. I'm not sure I really understand your point, but in any case, between us, we have removed the nonsense that the the Royal Air Force is "sometimes called Northolt Aerodrome". Emeraude (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HI, I still live under it!

I agree with your decision - all the best.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the person who applied parties to the page of Tommy Robinson. Thank you for taking the EDL off, I forgot that wasn't a party! My question is this: If he wasn't a member of UKIP then how did he get appointed as an adviser to Gerard Batten? I'd also like to say that you ARE right to say that Independent isn't a party but it CAN go into the political party area to state the fact. Independent has been used on many page such as Fiona Onasanya, Alastair Campbell, Philip Hammond, and Bernie Sanders! Amanofpolitics (User talk:Amanofpolitics) 17:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was appointed by Batten to, I believe, a paid post, but he was not actually a member. UKIP's rules (then at least) actually banned him from being a member. You have a point about Independent. Emeraude (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit-warring on UK far-right politics. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems to be resolved for the moment. Emeraude (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's a question of disambiguation for Patrick Harrington, see Talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude, I am puzzled by your edit. On the Nick Lowles quotation, it is from 2013, which is why “In 2013, Nick Lowles... believed” is plainly better than “Nick Lowles... believes”. I shall revert that. I have raised no objection to including what he believed, although as he is a political opponent his opinion is hardly a neutral one. But on the next section, my point was that mere speculation seven years ago by an opponent about what might later happen is completely unencyclopedic, especially in a section titled “History”. So I shall revert that and copy this to the Talk page. If you have more to say, please add it there. Moonraker (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the dates you removed. I presume this was an error? GiantSnowman 14:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not an error. Dates should appear in text which is where I moved them. There is no evidence that the database is a reliable source; if it is then by all means remove the tag. Emeraude (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dates should be in the lede, and Neil Brown is a reliable source (disagree? Go to

WT:FOOTBALL. You have been reverted per BRD and should not restore your edits without consensus. GiantSnowman 15:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Birth date and place - "The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and (when applicable) death". GiantSnowman 15:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see it yourself: - "The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and (when applicable) death. These dates (specific day–month–year) are important information about the subject, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context." Emeraude (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"may be sufficient" - they are not. It is standard for footballer articles to have full DOB in the lede. If you disagree then raise at

WP:BRD. GiantSnowman 15:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Is sufficient in this case: an article with just four (count 'em) sentences, and what is "standard" is not neccesarily right. And don't be so arrogantly pompous. Emeraude (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I reverted your edits because it have a lot of errors and the formatting was incorrect. Maybe you should have read the guidelines a bit more (

TheAmazingPeanuts. And how many errors are in the two sentences you have just written here? (Clue: at least 3.)Emeraude (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edits are not "errors", so that's my mistake and I restored most of them, but however you italicize

MOS:ITALICTITLE). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Merriam-Webster Online

). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." AllMusic is most definitely an "online non-user-generated encyclopedia". Secondly, using the "cite web" template to create a reference, whatever is entered after "website=" appears at the foot of the article in italics.

Further, AllMusic, Tidal et al are not publishers any more than The Wall Street Journal is a publisher. They are each owned by publishing organisations. Emeraude (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your opinion then anything else. Dan56 who is now

WT:ALBUMS, it's better to start a consensus first. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Deal with the issues: MOS:ITALICTITLE says you're wrong; cite web template says you're wrong; not knowing that AllMusic and others are NOT publishers shows you're wrong! Emeraude (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, take this at

WT:ALBUMS and let's see that other editors will agreed with your opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

And another thing, the "cite web" template don't have anything to do with the websites should be italicized. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it italicises website names! Emeraude (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started a

WT:ALBUMS, we can talk there instead. I'm not gonna continue to argue with this issue here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, why did you revert my edits on Deed of change of name without giving me a summary of where you think I went wrong? I think my citations, such as adding a link to both the DVLA and Passport Office asking for a deed poll, are more than valid. Rotation4020 (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to come back later and amend the changes. The citations are badly formatted, but parts of what you changed in the text are wrong, specifically

"Some organisations, such as government departments issuing passports and driving licences, may not recognise a name change without documentation, such as a deed or statutory declaration"

which you changed to

"Some organisations, such as government departments issuing passports and driving licences, may not recognise a name change without a deed poll."

That suggests that only a deed poll is acceptable - it is not.

Also, a repeated ciatation should be named rather than entered in full again, and one of your ciations is better covered by one further down the article.

I'll go back now and tidy it up now. However, this does make the article look like it's about English law, and it isn't, which is why there are separate subheads for various jurisdictions below. Emeraude (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew it was weird and not something I have seen before when copying from Google books, which offers a way to make a link so you don't need to use the url used for the search. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Took me three tries to get something that even looks right! I'm sure there must be a way of getting it to diplay the actual page, rather than the search results showing all the (parts of) pages. Anyway, the key thing is that the author, title and page are displayed and that's the important thing about a citationEmeraude (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emeraude, I would like to discuss with you the cancellation of my second modification on the article List of castles in France. I think you have not seen my second revision was different than the first one. In first, it's true i did a mistake with the link. It's because there is no specific article on english wikipedia about the "Château de Cadillac". The page with this name is in fact a redirection page to the village of Cadillac (where the main image is a picture of the castle, it's misleading). So you deleted my revision and it's logical. After i changed the link in order to refer to the french wikipedia article, where there is a dedicaded page only for the castle : Cadillac. And it's possible in the article List of castles in France to inset this kind of link because it's written on top : "Italics indicate links to articles in the French Wikipedia." As you can see if you click on the link i've fixed, it's not the village but the castle ! Could you please cancel your last reversion because the Castle of Cadillac is one of the most important historical castles in Gironde : official page. It's even the only one in this region managed by the Centre des monuments nationaux. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefunky (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jefunky: You're absolutely right, but that is not the point I made. It's nothing to do with the link. The page is called List of castles in France. The notes at the top of the page explain what goes there, i.e. castles. Château de Cadillac is NOT a castle. It is not right to assume that when the French say château that it translates as "castle". In English usage, "castle" is not the same as château. (The other article you added does qualify, because it was originally a castle before becoming a mansion.) Please read the page header carefully for a full explanation. Emeraude (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude: I thought it was a castle because of the moat and the bailey vestiges, but it's true it's not a real military fortress, just a stately Château. I understood the builing is too young to be a castle, at that time, only the citadel was militarily efficacious.--Jefunky (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jefunky: Your addition of Château de Cazeneuve is correct though. I will try to expand it from the French Wikipedia version later. Emeraude (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the purpose of my edit. If you read the statement, it's saying that: "It presents itself as an English equivalent to the Scottish National Party, although the Scottish National Party is generally considered to be a centre-left party whereas the English Democrats are on the right of the political spectrum." The problem with that statement is that there is no source (currently on the page) that defines the English Democrats as being on the right of the political spectrum, and therefore I removed the claim. However with the removal of that claim, there is no necessity of mentioning the political categorisations of the SNP. Alssa1 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. See references currently numbered [3] and [4]. Emeraude (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you explain why you won't remove the label facists given to Britain First as : Professor Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times". "Fascist" is sometimes applied to post-World War II organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term "neo-fascist".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.164.85 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so. But just because the term is sometimes misused does not mean it is misused here. Griffiths hasn't said it is. It is not for me to remove a lablel that is properly sourced. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources, and all the available reliable sources agree that Britain First is fascist. The distinction between fascist and neo-fascist is itself somewhat artificial and implies that there is some massive difference between the two - there isn't really other than the date. Emeraude (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean "no rationale"??!!! i just (quoted james mason book Siege ie ATOMWAFFEN'S MEIN KAMPF) in siege, james mason wants to create a new order which in 10,000 years rules the universe, "Let us drop the dreaming, the faking, and the immature unreality, and recruit an army of the worst– if need be– in order to smash the Beast System and make way for the Ideal to dominate the planet and the universe ten thousand years from now.", now can you please expalian your revert? Gooduserdude (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Wikipedia:SECONDARY. Wikipedia utilizes secondary sources, ie. we don't use what nazis write about themselves but what others write about them. Besides, sometimes less is more, I don't know if adding both Apocalypticism and Millennarianism and World Domination truly adds to it or just clutters the already large infobox.RKT7789 (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

ok do you have any secondary sources for "ONA Satanism (factions)" in Atomwaffen Division, meybe we should just delete all the ideologies without a secondary source? Gooduserdude (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you know what REALLY clutters the infobox?, things like

• Futurism
• Homophobia
• Neo-fascism
• White supremacism
• White nationalism

is not included in Neo-Nazism anyway? Gooduserdude (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think RKT7789 (talk) has adequately explained it. And the place for this is the Atomwaffen talk page of the article. Emeraude (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes i will keep future discussion there, but just one last thing here, am sorry i tried to attempt something and it did not work, i would actually be really SAD IF ANY single ideology would be removed SO KEEP EVERTHING so thank you and good day Gooduserdude (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A source is considered 'reliable' by the current socio-political order... so what? So scantily substantiated are most claims of "white supremacist" that they can almost be disregarded on sight. A white person may hold racist views, or other kinds of controversial views on race and culture, that doesn't automatically pertain to white supremacy. They may have said something once than can be loosely deemed as "white supremacist" but that shouldn't automatically be considered a primary description or a significant conviction of someone, but you'll go digging to find something which you arbitrarily determine satisfies the description. In the future I'd expect to see any citations include substantiated claims based on honest analysis, not just baseless or dubious descriptions passed through the media cycle (which is dominated by liberal; progressive organizations).

It's disappointing to see such persistence from activist editors determined to spread misinformation.

Wotanii1 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go rant somewhere else. Emeraude (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Les Fanatiques has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film, nothing found in a

WP:NFILM

. Even the article in French had no useful citations as they were all film database sites. Tagged for notability since June 2015.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Something Fishy (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NFILM

. It has been tagged since June 2015 for notability issues.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Something Fishy (film) 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/Something Fishy (film) 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. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am literally looking at the review in https://web.archive.org/web/20120507062104/http://ht.salemweb.net/ccm/ccmmagazine/pdf/200504.pdf:

"NATALIE GRANT

"Awaken

"Curb

"It’s Natalie like you’ve never heard her before."

This appears on page 47 of the pd document and page 64 of the magazine. I'm not sure why you think it does not exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, you're right. I made the mistake of thinking it was an accurate archive that could be searched and only found two (irrelevant) mentions on pages 44 and 48. Emeraude (talk) 09:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't quite understand this edit in which you placed a notability tag at Multiply (Jamie Lidell album). It has received plenty of significant coverage from major music publications like Pitchfork, Mojo, NME, and many more, all cited in the article, so it easily passes GNG/NMUSIC. What makes you doubt its notability? Lennart97 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music magazines review everything they are sent for free by the record companies. That does not make an album notable. Do any of them say anything in the reviews that make us think the album stands out from the hundreds of thousands of other albums? That's the point. A review in itself is not significant coverage. The function of the notability tag on any article is not to say that something is NOT notable; it simply draws attention to the fact that nothing in the article explains why this album is notable and invites other editors to add sourced evidence that it is. Is Multiply notable? I've no idea, though it might be that its inclusion in a list of top 200 albums satisfies that. Sales and chart figures might cement that. Emeraude (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit of an unusal interpretation of the notability tag, which states The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. Full-length reviews certainly count as significant coverage, and when there are multiple of them, both NALBUM and GNG are met. Again per the text in the tag, the notability is then demonstrated by citing this significant coverage. Sure, the article could be improved by citing this coverage for more than a mere rating, but that's not a notability issue. Also, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Music magazines review everything they are sent for free by the record companies. That does not explain why so many albums, even by notable artists, just fail to get any reviews whatsoever. And there's thousands of albums just like that which currently have Wikipedia articles, either tagged or not-yet-tagged, so I honestly feel like tagging articles like Multiply, which cites an abundance of SIGCOV (and indeed even appears in a best-of-the-decade list from a major publication), distracts from those. Lennart97 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but I can read reviews in the most obscure places that are not worthy of mention. Number of reviews in itself is not good enough. And, many reviewers are hardly reliable sources (for example, much of AllMusic is written by non-pros), so the quality of the review/source is a consideration. Feel free to remove the tag if you wish. Emeraude (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I certainly agree that not every review counts (especially AllMusic will review pretty much anything) and that merely the number of reviews doesn't mean much, either. In this case, the big-name reviews combined do suffice, I think. I'll remove the tag but I'll also see if I can improve the article somewhat based on those reviews. Thank you for explaining your reasoning to me! I do appreciate it. Lennart97 (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove notability tags from articles without providing evidence to disprove the requirement of that tag. doktorb _words^deeds 18:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add notability tags to articles that have twice been kept at AfDs that you initiated. 12:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, thrice. Emeraude (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing this because you contributed to Publius (publishing system) ariticle. I tried to improve the article, bit since I could not find any more reliable sources, I proposed article deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publius (publishing system) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Anton.bersh (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Achille Maffre de Baugé has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet

WP:NAUTHOR

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

Hello! I saw that you undid my category revision on Liberty GB - I'm new and still sort of unclear on the rules of category diffusion, so maybe you can help clear this up for me? I figured since was also tagged as Category:UK Independence Party breakaway groups, which is a subcategory of Category:UK Independence Party, which is a subcategory of Category:Far-right political parties in the United Kingdom, which is a subcategory of Category:Far-right politics in the United Kingdom, then by the rules of diffusion it should only be in the narrowest category and not any of the larger ones. Does diffusion not go that far down the chain? I appreciate the help! Thanks! Niftysquirrel (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but you removed Category:Far-right politics in the United Kingdom. My understanding is that you should do that only if the artcle in question is also in one of the 10 sub-categories of Far-right politics in the United Kingdom, which it is not. Emeraude (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotcha. Thanks! But I notice it's ALSO in Category:Far-right political parties in the United Kingdom, which is a direct sub-category of Category:Far-right politics in the United Kingdom. So wouldn't my edit stand? Niftysquirrel (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So, elsewhere you have made edits as "removed Category:Far-right politics in the United Kingdom; added Category:Far-right political parties in the United Kingdom" which makes sense. I only saw the differences, not the full article so the solution would have been to remove the higher level with the explanation that a subsidiary category covers it. Sorry, it's not that what you did was wrong but that the way you justified it didn't make it clear. I've done that. Emeraude (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah .. I'm not going to revert again, but Starmer's not mentioned at all in the Sunday Mirror article, so you've still only got one reliable source to support the statement "Starmer was widely criticised for his failure to challenge the caller, who was revealed by investigative group Red Flare to be Jody Swingler, a yoga teacher and Patriotic Alternative activist". And IMO it's still UNDUE. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So, take out "widely". Emeraude (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "Keir Starmer under fire for failing to challenge radio caller's racism", The Guardian, which covers it. Emeraude (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just want to thank you for your corrections on the châteaux articles, but I'm just a poor French learning English, so contributing to Wikipedia in English is really helpful to me even if I'm not always right. I also try to help as much as I can, so please be indulgent. I will try to be more careful and pay attention. Have a nice day, thank you again. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I also crave indulgence on the rare occasions I contribute to French Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that you reverted my edit which removed my name from the list of "Key People" in the Northern Independence Party article (with a note explaining that I am no longer a member either of the party's National Executive Committee or the party itself). Your note attached to the reversion suggests that I should provide a reliable source.

Can you advise what you and/or Wikipedia would consider reliable? The Northern Independence Party did not publicise my resignation at the time, and it is very unlikely that they will voluntarily do so.

I control the Twitter account @schesis which is evidently the source for my name being listed as that of a "key member" of the party (since the tweet cited as a source does not directly name me). I am happy to verify that I, the Wikipedian with the username Schesis, am indeed Zero Piraeus, the Twitter user with the handle @schesis – by some reasonable, mutually agreed method. I would prefer not to publicly announce my resignation from NIP via Twitter nearly two months after the event – which would be considered antagonistic by my former colleagues – simply for the sake of correcting one inaccuracy which only really matters to me.

I'm sure this kind of thing happens all the time, but I've been unable to find good information about how to amicably correct an inadvertent falsehood about me published by Wikipedia. As you seem to be an experienced editor I would appreciate your advice. Schesis (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is quite simple - anyone, literally, can claim on Wikipedia to be anyone they like. Just saying you are Zero Piraeus is no use - you may be, you may not be and there is no way of knowing. That's why Wikipedia requires

reliable sources and not what amounts to "It is so because I say it is so." I suggest you tell your erstwhile colleagues you have left and ask them to put it on their website. Emeraude (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I see on your user page that you use JSTOR and I'd like to know more about your experience. By my calculations, a good 70 % of the main JSTOR content is now available for everyone at Internet Archive Scholar, with full text search provided e.g. at https://scholar.archive.org/ . The service is still in beta, but I've used it for some source-finding and it seems quite usable to me; I wonder whether that's just my experience. If you have a chance, the next time you'd be looking for a source on Google Scholar or JSTOR or similar, to perform the same search on IA scholar instead, I'd be curious to hear how it ends up. Thanks, Nemo 19:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your uncivil personal attack from the AfD and you need reminding that talk pages should not be so unwieldy and large as yours. Keep your own house in order before policing other people's editing. doktorb _words^deeds 15:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated it. A) It is not uncivil. B) It is not ana ttck on your person but your actions. C) I'll keep my talk page the way I want, not you. If you don't like it, tough. Emeraude (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out you off-topic hounding as per policy on behaviour by uncivil editors who only personally attack others and are never constructive. doktorb _words^deeds 15:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that was grammatically correct I might be upset. Emeraude (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Emeraude, I've changed departement to department for consistency in the articles. First because a lot of articles are using department and also because it doesn't make sense to write departement in the article with a link leading to an article about departments. I'm not an expert, but when it's not necessary, I think it's better avoiding French words in the article when they don't bring something about the meaning. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Loiseaulybre Look carefully at what you have just written. You did not "change departement to department"; you changed département to départment, a non-existant word. When the word is written as département in italics it is French. If you are using the English translation it is "department" (no italics). It is NEVER "départment", with or without italics - that is neither English nor French. It is perfectly all right to use French words in an article when they are linked to an appropriate article, and in this case the English word "department" is not necessarily going to be recognised by English-language readers as an administrative area.

I also reverted your edit changing US spelling to UK spelling. This should never be done for personal preference. Wikipedia accepts both, but it should be consistent within an article. If and article originated with US spelling, it maintains US spelling, and vice versa. The exception would be an article dealing solely with a topic relevant to only the US or UK, which would have the spelling of the topic's country. Emeraude (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you are right, my bad, sorry.

About the US spelling to UK spelling, I changed it for consistency within the article, not just for fun and as the first nationalised word was in British English, I chose British English, that's all. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have again undone your edits to Alexandre de Vincent de Mazade. See the last sentence is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text, and User:Aymatth2#Line breaks. Single line breaks at the end of each sentence make no difference to the appearance of the article, but do make it easier to edit the article for handicapped editors. Possibly, because the citations are at the end of the lines rather than embedded in the paragraphs, it makes it easier in general to edit the text. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "A single line break may follow a sentence, which may help some editors."? That doesn't spound like much of an instruction to me. Emeraude (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emeraude! Recently there are some editors

Why do you think the parameter exists if it's not to be used? Deb (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's to be used if the langauge is not that of the Wikipedia language. Look at it - "language=en" does absolutely nothing in English Wikipedia, whereas, for example, "language=fr" or "language=cy" do display "French" or "Welsh". In other words, it's completely redundant in the English Wikipedia which is why none of the 31 refs on the Jamie Wallis page use it (other than the two I removed it from!) If you use an English language source on the French or Welsh language Wikipedias, then "language=en" has a function, but in English Wikipedia it does not. (And if using a foreign language source, it really does help to also use the "trans-title=" parameter as well, which would clearly be a nonsense if the language is English.) Emeraude (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template you removed was not "language=en"; it was "language=en-GB". Deb (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being......? It is equally redundant whether it says language=en, language=en-GB, language=en-Au, language=en-US or language=en-anything else. Emeraude (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it notable enough to have the tag removed now? That it was the debut of Rati Agnihotri (an immensely popular Indian actress) and debut for K. Bhagyaraj (a popular multi-tasking filmmaker and actor) in a leading role should've been enough to prove it, besides the two awards it won. What does UtherSRG have to say? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That it was someone's first film does not make it notable. Winning awards does. Emeraude (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]