User talk:Emeraude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My reasons for questioning the decision are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't forget you can use [1] to find old copies of pages, including PDF files if you're lucky. I updated a dead link to [2], not sure if there's any more to update in the article though. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, you can write shorter links to entries in this database, using the Référence number, like

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/merimee_fr?ACTION=RETROUVER&REQ=((PA00110281):REF).

Regards, — M-le-mot-dit (T) 19:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Emeraude (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though this might not seem to be a big deal to some people, those same people would have allowed this article to wallow in its poor state. You demonstrate a fine eye for editing that, since you are doing it on such a minor article, I can only assume that you do everywhere.

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For a fine eye to copyediting and just plain good writing, I award you this Editor's Barnstar. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the award. I have to say that I do not go looking for such articles, but every now and then when I click on Random article up comes some US village/town/city where the section on demographics (itself a lousy word!) is worded identically. I presume that someone at some point wrote the section for one place and it has cut and pasted across the whole of Wikipedia, without any thought. So I alter them as you've seen. I think it's for the better and it seems you agree. But not everyone does. I once almost got into an editing war with someone who thought the changes were wrong and he reverted them. I re-edited, one change at a time and explainibng why each ws correct. No good - total intransigence. (See Ismay, Montana) Oh well....

Again, thanks for the award - it's much appreciated. Emeraude (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's no more cause for Dismay over Ismay, ay? HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just paid a visit back to Ismay, Montana. Looks like that intransigent editor was successfully kept away (though I am not sure if it's because he actually saw the illogic of his position, or because he did not do well in situations where he was outnumbered). But I left a question on the talk page that I now realize you may know something about.HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded there. Emeraude (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2010 "Military historian of the Year" award. We're grateful for your help, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Republicanism in the United Kingdom|British republicanism"

"Reverting utter nonsense"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No it isn't. And it was misleading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of which I make frequent use. You can't improve references when there none to improve in the first place. Emeraude (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Emeraude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Great work cleaning up the prose and other items at 1991 (EP)! Dan56 (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An article that you have been involved in editing, Liberty GB, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ivanvector (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Emeraude,

I thought I would put a polite suggestion here for you to be a little more gentle and polite with other editors - I refer in particular to your exchanges on the UKIP talk pages. You seem to be involved in a disproportionate number of disputes