User talk:Emeraude

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

^'*"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Hello, Emeraude. You have new messages at Alexf's talk page.
Message added 15:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

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

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)

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 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi Emeraude,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

château, n.

Pronunciation: /ˈʃatəʊ/

Forms: Also 17 shattow. Pl. châteaux.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Tyndall in his book The Eleventh Hour admitted that associating with the National Socialist Movement in the 1960s was a mistake and 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".

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

About this: . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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. Bacondrum (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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)

"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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

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

I have opened the discussion on the talk-page. You are cordially invited to discuss the addition. Please recall WP:BRD and the fact that the onus on getting consensus is on you. You were bold, I reverted (based on WP:UNDUE), no we discuss. Kleuske (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I discovered a duplicate translation of Keep of Pons at Château de Pons. Merging has been proposed. You have been involved with quite a few of these chateau articles, which do you think is more appropriate? Traditionally (from about 1200 to 1600) there was a chateau and the article discusses both the keep and the history of the surroundings. "Keep" seems to be more commonly used. There is another chateau in Pons (Chateau de Usson), perhaps this is why they generally call the site "le donjon de pons" rather than chateau. What are your thoughts? Dig _deeper ^talk 02:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Re this . 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 WP:V requires that we establish that this individual is actually an active holocaust denier, which I believe is the criteria for inclusion.Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

That's fine; WP:BLPN is thataway. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

And it has spoken, this is not a BLP violation, and the Daily Mirror can be used. If anyone is not happy with this wp:RSN is thataway.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

Examples of encyclopedias using the original verbiage. Dan56 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-periodicals are not italicized (MOS:ITALICTITLE) Dan56 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

HI, I still live under it!

I agree with your decision - all the best.

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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 WT:FOOTBALL. Do not continue to disruptively edit in breach of WP:BRD. GiantSnowman 15:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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 (WP:MOS). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Most of the edits are not "errors", so that's my mistake and I restored most of them, but however you italicize AllMusic and Tidal, non-periodicals should not be italicized (MOS:ITALICTITLE). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts Wrong, on two counts. Firstly, to quote MOS:ITALICTITLE, "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or [[HuffPost|HuffPost]]). Online non-user-generated encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or 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)

That's just your opinion then anything else. Dan56 who is now Isento, has already talked to you awhile ago about non-periodicals are not italicized. By looking at your edit history, you clearly don't go around music-related articles since almost every music-related article don't have AllMusic or any other non-periodical website italicized, and you just cherry-pick one article of all. If you wanna have a discussion about italics, I advise you take this at WT:ALBUMS, it's better to start a consensus first. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

I started a discussion at 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@Gooduserdude: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass 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 deleted for any of several reasons.

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)

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

WP:BEFORE turns up little to indicate that this film passes WP:NFILM. It has been tagged since June 2015 for notability issues.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 deleted for any of several reasons.

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. Rusf10 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• So, take out "widely". Emeraude (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi Emeraude! Recently there are some editors WP:CITESPAMing across number of wikis (e.g. Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:3172:8200::/64), I have removed the problematic paragraphs in Religious education. Since you were contributing to these texts in the past, I would like you to know. Mys_721tx (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

The problem is, Donaldd23 is on a prodding spree, and his targets are those articles where he sees the notability tag, regardless of how well they is sourced. Puthiya Vaarpugal too was one such victim, and while it was not perfect, it had a few sources and did not deserve to be deleted. I do not know what I could have done to prevent it (later I got it undeleted, but success was a 50-50 chance since the undeletion admin may have agreed with Donald). Hope the article is better now. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

To repeat, being someone's first film does not make it notable. But neither does having "a few sources" - the sources must demonstrate the notability of the subject. Emeraude (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

I really like the articles you create, publish and edit on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could write an article about Oskar Hartmann, entrepreneur, business angel and international investor, and publish it in the German or English version of Wikipedia.

The article should reflect his professional career, his investments and his philosophy of life.

My name is Emma Rogers

I look forward to hearing from you. Can you take on a task like this? Are you interested in describing Hartmann's biography as an author? RogEmma (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Emeraude,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not familar with Wikipedia entries but it appears you have added an entry to a Wikipedia article about me "Philip Pedley" You have conflated me with a racist teacher of the same name who is banned from teaching. This is highly damaging to both my reputation in general and my career as a university academic. Given that have been an active anti racist who engaged in campaigns against the fringe and extremist right, this conflation is even more upsetting. The surname Pedley is not common but there are plenty of them around, especially in the north. For example, just academia alone, there are at least two other Philip Pedley's with PhD's publishing research books and papers. I have written to Wikipedea to highlight this and request immediate action. 149.86.184.145 (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I have not added anything to the Philip Pedley article. My only edits to that page have been to correct layout, punctuation, reference detail and formatting. Emeraude (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the material was added by an IP. This does indeed appear to be a conflation of two completely different people, so I have restored the previous version and revision-deleted the probable BLP violations as well. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't know why he picked on me though. Emeraude (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familar with Wikipedia entries and protocol. When I clicked on the article your 'handle' was next to the last update. So sorry if it was not you who entered the incorrect information. Alameinsixty (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not quite true. But in any case you could have easily checked the edit(s) I made, which editors had made which edits or requested a correction on the talk page rather than making threats. Emeraude (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Emeraude,

I'm interested in which user did post the comments and what date? I am not a Wiki use having only created an account today in order to contact Wikipedia. As such I'm not familar with Wiki terminology or how to precisely identify who did what when. To an ill-informed eye it looked like the only entry to the offending item was on 20 March 2023 and I clicked on the user name next to it.

I didn't think I did make any threats in my post above [08:52, 5 April 2023] but rather a request to take down the inaccurate entry immediately. I made a similar request via an Wikipedia e-mail obtained from their guidance page on what to do if a libel is alleged in an entry.

That aside, I have looked at the contributions you have made to Wikipedia and these are, in my opinion, of a high standard and coincidentally mirror a lot of my own interests. I see you went to Aberystwyth Univ.the student magazine of which featured prominently in my (and the BBC's) legal battle with Neil Hamilton.

Anyway,there's certainly no hard feelings on my part and I hope none on yours either.

Regards

Dr Philip Pedley Alameinsixty (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that. Is there any way the entry can reflect my actual situation/status as a University academic to avoid this occuring again? I am not and never have been a secondary school teacher but I have been based at Lancaster University lecturing and conducting research. You can search Dr Philip Pedley Lancaster See: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/arts-and-social-sciences/people/philip-pedley I use my middle inital (philip m pedley) to try and distunuish myself from other philip pedleys. I think I will post a copyright free image of myself that might assist?

I think this conflation might occur again since there are still members on the right-wing fringes that bear a grudge about my anti-racist activities and probably find it hilarious I share a name with a disbarred teacher accused of racism.

Any way thanks again.

Dr Philip Pedley Alameinsixty (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

There was an implied threst of libel proceedings. If you're not the same Philip Pedley (how do I know?) there's nothing I can do. The article is about the the right winger, not about saying who he isn't. Monitor the page yourself. Emeraude (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I just wanted to let you know I removed the tag you had put on Stand Up (2019 film), after linking 4 reviews to the page (+ 1 already there). Mostly from established newspapers. Notability seems really clear. Best, .— MY, OH, MY! 21:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

But that is not sufficient. Reviews do not confer notability, whether on records, books, films etc. Reviewers will review anything. What it needs to show notability would be, for example, box office numbers or awards won. That X number of newspapers reviewed it is not sufficient - the reviewers get free admission or a free copy and it's their paid job. That applies across the board, not just to films. I've put the notability tag back. It does not say that Stand Up is not notable - I haven't a clue - but that's the point. I can't tell from the article as it stands. Emeraude (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Quoting Donaldd23 here: "WP:NFILM states that 2 reviews are enough for notability. WP:NFO. This arguement has kept hundreds of articles in deletion discussions, and this film passes that". Kailash29792 (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You've twice reverted this article to an older version using outdated code. Wikipedia:CITEBUNDLE clearly says NOT to use the code you reverted to: "However, using line breaks to separate list items breaches WP:Accessibility § Nobreaks: "Do not separate list items with line breaks." {{Unbulleted list citebundle}} was made specifically for this purpose; also available is {{unbulleted list}}." Please stop this and follow the instructions given at the site which you cited yourself. Robert Kerber (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Self-contradictory though, isn't it, given that it specifically says that bundling may be done with "Bullets", "Line breaks" or "Paragraphs". Emeraude (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Emeraude. Just seen your edits of my Wiki page. We are no longer a political party because we de-registered as one with the Electoral Commission at the end of March 2023. Can you please reverse your edits? Thanks.

Mike Buchanan http://j4mb.org.uk 2.27.196.79 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No. First, it is not "your" Wiki page. Second, how do I know you are who you claim? Third, to do so requires a reliable source, which has not been provided. The J4MB website simply says it has deregistered, not that it no longer a party. If there is such a source, and not some anonymous say-so, then it can be included. Emeraude (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Good grief. A registered political party can opt not to field candidates in elections, but it's not a political party unless it's registered as such with the Electoral Commission. We've de-registered, so we're no longer a political party.

If you check this page https://j4mb.org.uk/contact-us/ you'll see my email address there, feel free to email me and I'll reply.

The "reliable source" issue is a problem given that the mainstream media very rarely cover men's issues or criticise feminism and feminists, so they don't cover J4MB. From another link, https://j4mb.org.uk/2015-general-election-manifesto/:

"From the beginning, and until its de-registration as a party in April 2023, J4MB was the only party in the English-speaking world..."

If you maintain your current position, you'll be in the surreal position of maintaining an organisation is a political party when its own leader has explained to you that it isn't. 2.27.196.79 (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No. You are wrong. There is no legal requirement on a party to be registered unless it is contesting elections. I have no interest in contacting you or whoever you are. If there is a reliable source - e.g. the J4MB website saying "we are no longer a party" (which would be very simple) or a newspaper reporting it is no longer a party - the issue remains mute. By your reckoning, a number of parties whose registration lapsed because they forgot to pay the annual fee for a few months ceased to be parties but became parties again when they paid. That's nonsense. And, taken to its logical extent, the Whigs were not a party! Emeraude (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Since we de-registered as a political party with the Electoral Commission at the end of March 2023, J4MB has not been a political party (fairly obviously). An editor edited the page accordingly recently, but another editor, 'Emeraude', reversed those edits, so this page now gives the (false) impression we're still a party. I am having a conversation with Emeraude on his/her Talk page on the matter, hopefully all will be sorted before long.

Mike Buchanan

That is not correct. I a reverted to the status quo that a reliable source is required to say that it is not a party. That is all. I have not said that is. I have no evidence it is. I have no evidence it isn't. That is the Wikipedia way of doing things. Emeraude (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In our exchange above you wrote:

"If there is a reliable source - e.g. the J4MB website saying "we are no longer a party" (which would be very simple)..."

As you've seen, I did EXACTLY that, and yet you persist. I've explained why I cannot provide a "reliable source" i.e. the mainstream media refuse to give us any coverage. You are making yourself (and by extension Wikipedia) look very silly. I look forward to explaining to anyone who believes we're still a political party because of your intervention, the hoops we've gone through to try and make the Wiki entry accurate, without success.

It's worth noting how flexible Wiki editors can be about "reliable sources". When I and my colleague Elizabeth Hobson gave talks at Cambridge University you saw fit to quote from the feminist University website Varsity. The corruption of Wikipedia by feminists couldn't be clearer. 2.27.196.79 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If I can interject, I'm an editor who believes that far too much coverage is given to minor parties and as Wikipedia is not a register of political parties, it should be much easier to delete those parties without any notability or significant electoral history. When I have time I can purge most of the article so there's no question that you're no longer an active electoral party and Wikipedia doesn't need acres of paragraphs about you. doktorb _words^deeds 11:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I made an edit to the Printworks (London) page on 13/7/2023 regarding a new venue being opened by the organisers. The edit was removed because the opening date I provided for the new venue (September 2023) was labelled a “crystal ball speculation”. This is despite Providing two reputable articles (Guardian and DJ Mag) which state that September 2023 is the slated opening time. This date is also provided on the official Drumsheds website. For this, I’m confused how this information is speculative as the sources are official and would like to know what the criteria for speculation is as this is not provided.

Furthermore, I’d like to know why this led to the entire edit being struck down, including the edit I made changing the incorrect “printwork” to the correct “printworks”. the whole edit was properly sourced and, to my knowledge, complied with the standards expected by Wikipedia. Therefore, I cannot understand why it was removed in its entirety. Any clarity on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Fthrs McGrw (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how "reputable" the sources (and I also read it in The Guardian) - the new proposed venue is not open so it is crystal ball gazing. When (if) it opens, add the detail. Also, "slated" is rather poor use of English, but never mind. Emeraude (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, looking again, I can't see that you added any sources for the proposed IKEA development at all! Emeraude (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This makes more sense. If I adjusted the edit to remove any mention of an opening date for the new venue would this be acceptable? Or is any mention of the new venue considered speculation?

When looking at my contribution history, a source is provided for the fact that Drumsheds will be in the former IKEA but it links to source 6 instead of the source I provided for some reason. Fthrs McGrw (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd like to encourage the creation of an article for Broadwick Live (printworks organisers) Is it acceptable to do so by linking it on the Printworks page even though a page does not exist or is this to be avoided? Fthrs McGrw (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your best bet is to try creating a page for Broadwick Live, though you will need to demonstrate in it that it is a notable organisation. Same goes for Drumsheds (which, of course, cannot possibly be notable before it has been opened). Either way, mention of Drumsheds on the Printworks page is not stictly relevant - it is not about Printworks after all, but just shares the same organisation, if and when it happens. Incidentally, the article I saw in The Guardian did not mention any opening date for Drumsheds, let alone "September 2023", but I have not seen the DJ Mag article you referred to. I caution again against crystal ball gazing - an encyclopedia deals with what is or has been, not what might be. Emeraude (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If you think that dead links are a problem, then let me point you to the WayBack-machine. Good luck! The Banner talk 12:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

One job at a time. Emeraude (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm interested in the rationale behind your edit here. I've been following WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE, which recommend avoiding piped links: "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text". I do have misgivings about the over-application of that advice, but I don't see the advantage of using a piped link in your edit above. It doesn't seem to be covered by the list of exceptions at WP:BYPASSREDIRECT, for example.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I have misgivings too, but it is, as you say, advice. Always better to be direct, in my opinion, especially when article names change. Emeraude (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

But isn't that an argument for redirects? If articles are moved, direct (or piped) links need updating, while any number of redirected links will keep on redirecting to the intended target if just one redirect page is updated. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

For example, there are currently 161 pages that link to "Bradford North (UK Parliament constituency)". If that page were renamed, those 161 links would all need to be edited in order to remain direct links. A quick survey of those pages suggests that most (if not all) of those links are actually piped links of the form [[Bradford North (UK Parliament constituency)|Bradford North]]. If they were redirects of the form [[Bradford North]], not only would the wikitext be more concise, more readable, and more WYSIWYG, but none of the links would need to be modified in the event of a move of the target page. Only the redirect page at Bradford North (which has been stable since 2008) would need updating. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

But Bradford North has never had any content. It exists only because readers are likely to type "Bradford North" into the search because that is the name of the constituency - why would anyone know that is not the name of the Wikipedia rticle. (Same applies to all UK constituencies and countless other subjects.) Putting a link into an article as an editor is to provide a connection, should a reader need it, to a related topic and, as you note, most of the links for Bradford North are piped. So it must be OK. Emeraude (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

A redirect isn't just for searches. The phrase "Bradford North (UK Parliament constituency)" is the title of an article, but it's not a useful English phrase in most contexts. There's an argument that that article should actually be moved to "Bradford North", since it's concise, unambiguous, and the most common term, per WP:TITLE. However, there seems to be a convention that all UK parliamentary constituency articles have names of the form "X (UK Parliament constituency)". That means that most (or all) links to that page will be pipes or redirects. WP:PIPE explains the pros and cons of the twwo different approaches, and WP:NOPIPE advises that piped links shouldn't be used simply to avoid redirects. WP:NOTBROKEN advises editors not to do what you did, and explains why.

There are certainly plenty of unnecessary piped links on Wikipedia, and I think there are several reasons for that, but the fact that there are doesn't negate the advice mentioned above that redirects are generally preferable - and that's why I tend to convert them when I find them. If the manual said the reverse, I would be doing the reverse. What I want to avoid is a situation where one group of editors is undoing the work of another simply because they prefer things that way.

One reason for the profusion of unnecessary piped links in certain articles is the presence of a very prolific block-evader whose favourite game is to change redirects to piped links. Examples of his work can be found here, here, here, and in literally hundreds (if not thousands) of other places. Most of my recent edits have been selectively reverting his work to change the piped links back into redirects, as the manual says they should be.

My main misgiving about following WP:NOPIPE too slavishly is that there are situations like [[2014 Scottish independence referendum|Scottish independence referendum]] which per WP:NOPIPE should be [[Scottish independence referendum]]. There's every possibility that at some point in the future another referendum on the issue may take place. If that happens, the first link would remain valid, while the second might well need to be updated. Such situations are in the minority, but I try to be aware of them and avoid changing them.

Sorry for the essay, but please have a read of the pages I've linked and give the matter careful thought. Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. Emeraude (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit makes a huge number of changes, most of which appear to be changes to references ("Formatted refs. Corrected refs."). WP:CITEVAR specifies that "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style", yet that is the biggest set of changes in this edit, with the format of almost every one of the references needlessly changed; if links are dead, Template:Webarchive works wonderfully as a means to add the archive link, if an alternative version of the reference can't be located. Yes, the article would benefit from some cleanup, but the mass alteration of citation format obscures the potentially meaningful changes. Yet even among those, you "tidied" a sentence to start "15.0% of the populationn were under the age of 18...", where the sentence starts with a number in conflict with MOS:NUMERAL ("Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure") and needlessly introduces a typo. I reverted the change, and I hope that a much more focused edit could be made that address the issues without the distraction of needless changes to citation format. Alansohn (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There was no "established citatation style" on the article! Perhaps you need to understand what citation style means - it's how they appear in the article, not the edit, (e.g. APA style, ASA style, MLA style, Chicago MoS, author-date referencing, the Vancouver system, Harvard) and I did, in fact, adopt for all refs the style used in most, but formatted the way in which they are in the backgound. Thanks for spotting my typo. And well done for reintroducing nonsense such as: "In the township, the population was spread out" (as compared to being concentrated in a single spot!?) , "got", "late-19th and early-20th century", "active from the 18th to early-20th centuries, until its closure in 1928" (as if we need to specify that 1928 is early-20th century", etc etc. So instead, I've just tagged the article as needing a rewrite. Emeraude (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Emeraude (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please read what WP:CITEVAR says. "When an article is already consistent, avoid:... adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently;" contrary to your claim, the citations are remarkably consistent. Fix the things that need fixing; just please don't make changes that are in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Citing sources, which documents an English Wikipedia content guideline on how to use references. If you are bothered by "In the township, the population was spread out", make the change. Alansohn (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a question of being bothered, more an issue of correcting gibberish nonsense. And, I did change it, or hadn't you noticed in your eagerness to revert? Emeraude (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that you reverted my edit to the disambiguation hat note on the Richard Tice article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Tice&diff=1224596343&markasread=314711166&markasreadwiki=enwiki&oldid=prev&title=Richard_Tice&diffonly=1). You may not be tracking the details of developments in the CofE and British evangelicalism, but Rico Tice has left the CofE for the International Presbyterian Church. See both the Rico Tice article and https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld3yKfC1n6A where Tice himself says he's "moved to the Presbyterian church". Undoubtedly, he remains British and hence I changed the hat note from Anglican evangelist to British evangelist. In the spirit of keeping Wikipedia accurate, I'd be grateful if you would self-revert your edit. Greenshed (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. But you could have done that yourself. Emeraude (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | June 2025 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with #JUN25, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The article Tomás Graves has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This subject appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR as well as WP:42/WP:GNG because the article depends almost exclusively upon WP:PRIMARY/WP:BLPSPS sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. JFHJr (㊟) 03:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | November 2025 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with #NOV25, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Starting on 1 November, the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up now! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | March 2026 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:MAR26]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)