User talk:Mezigue: Difference between revisions

Hello, Mezigue! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Why did you revert my edit on this article? He was explled from the party in 2000 so it is incorect to say that he was Labour MP for Brentford East from 87-01. --Prophesy (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single player: removed geeky gibberish That is an epic edit. Ix-ir (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see you made an excellent defence of my case. Generally I think the obsession with canon/non-canon considerations is an infection on Wikipedia. It belongs on fan sites and boards and means nothing to the general public, and I suspect to most writers. Mezigue (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say Mark Steel left the SWP in early 2008. Do you have a source? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Well I didn't add the information as such, I just amended the time reference because I thought "recently" was absurd in an encyclopedia. I understand he announced it a few days ago at some meeting or other but I have no solid source no. It is being said on political blogs and that's how I heard about it. Feel free - on my account - to add a "reference needed" caption or rephrase it all. Mezigue (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed much of my contribution to this section on the grounds that it was "endless rambling - do not tell whole jokes and stories, people... To the point!"

Weren't you amused by that part: how the Smurf's explanations gets increasingly confusing?

This is the problem with Wikipedia. The humour is being taken out. It's just not fun anymore.--Marktreut (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was nothing personal, but generally I think retelling jokes from a book is not as funny as reading them in the book in the first place anyway, if you know what I mean? Mezigue (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some rather weird reason the article about José Luis Munuera has been nominated for speedy (sic) deletion. Could you help me commenting on it on the talk page. --Oddeivind (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murgh has earlier written som excellent articles about the Spirou et Fantasio albums. However, he stopped up with the album Vito la Déveine. I see that there are articles about the remaining albums on the French Wikipedia. Unfortunately I don´t know French myself, so I wonder if you could maybe translate the articles to English. It would also have been nice with a translation of the one-shot-albums, including the article about the one shot-series itself. --Oddeivind (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the series proper, post-Franquin. I own some of the one-shots though (they are magnificent - Yann in particular is a genius) so I might give it a go. The problem is I am not convinced individual albums untranslated into English really warrant articles in English so I am reluctant to spend time and effort writing articles that could get deleted eventually. Mezigue (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess you have a point there, although it seems like the present articles have been accepted. Personally I find the existing articles highly enlightening. Unfortunately I am not able to read the French articles. By the way, do you know about any wiki in English about comics? I have seen such wikis in Danish and Swedish.

I have so far only read the first one shot, the one from Yoann/Vehlmann. This is so far the only one translated into Norwegian. The second one is translated into Danish (which is very similar to Norwegian), but I haven´t been able to get holdt of it so far. I have however seem some of the French version here on the net, and the stories look very nice, particularly the third and fifth. Hopefully they will come in Norwegian in not to long time... --Oddeivind (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the most recent edit war has stopped with the blocking of the disruptive editor. However I wanted to get some feedback on content that was dropped during the last several rounds of edit wars. I really have no idea who dropped what and why, but I want to make sure I'm not stepping on anybody's toes before adding stuff back in. Also, whether anything that SQuentinQuale was trying to add is usable if referenced and rephrased in less inflammatory language. Your feedback is valuable. Discussions here:

• Talk:Harry's_Place#Disputed_edit
• Talk:Harry's_Place#Dropped_content_during_the_last_round_of_edit_wars

Peter G Werner (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a little concerned about the editing that you are doing to this article. You are taking out a lot of information and reducing it to the bear essentials. Take Professor Decimus Phostle which used to note how he changed over the course of the journey to the Artic Circle: his contrasting attitude to the end of the world (which he welcomes) and the report of a ship in distress (in which he calls off the search for the meteorite to rescue people in danger). Don't you think that those sort of things are relevant? If I was to put in references to where such insightful remarks are made, would you accept the reversing of some of these edits? Thank you.--Marktreut (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking out information. I am taking out long, rambling and sometimes really badly written retellings of the stories. Mezigue (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But some of these "ramblings" also look at aspects of the characters. Aren't those relevant?--Marktreut (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think "escaped" is essential. I just was having trouble with calling the prisoner a murderer. Wasn't he actually innocent?

If so, maybe a phrase like escaped convict or escaped prisoner, convicted of murder would be better. We don't want to mislead readers, even if Harry Potter in the story was given misleading information. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You worry too much: that stuff is clarified in the very next sentence. Mezigue (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you replaced unreferenced material in an article with the edit-summary, "almost all continuity and plot stuff is unsourced," suggesting that I should draw your attention to Wikipedia:Other shit exists :) ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 13:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film was based on Sfar's graphic novel - [1], [2], [3]. I could keep adding tons more as there is a graphic novel which the director then adapted into a screenplay. Next time, make sure you do some research before making unneeeded changes.Donmike10 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this excellent advice. If I may rely on your superior researching skills, could you tell me which graphic novel this is please? Mezigue (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. PLEASE STOP! As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sourcing#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources it is OK to give 3rd party sources for a claim that has not got wide media coverage. It was also seen that you deleted conventional sources. Please refrain from such actions in the future. --85.99.132.176 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have entirely misunderstood the page you link to. It states that claims of conspiracy require particularly thorough sourcing, as opposed to meaning normal standards have to be relaxed as you seem to understand it. Mezigue (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

You clearly appear to have a bias for the French government, as Wikipedia is not a French source, has to be unbiased, also, you are not assuming good faith.

I reserve the right to use these sources for the world to know what is the other side of the french police, as until now, nothing was written about they faulty actions, and we all need to make wikipedia a better place, unbiased, that exposes the good AND the bad sides of any organization. Thus, any change made in CRS will stay as per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Also new users like myself have to be bold or else, Sarkozy minded people like will destroy our efforts for the truth.

--85.99.132.176 (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you appear to not understand the page you link to, as you are the one now assuming bad faith while boasting an agenda of your own. Mezigue (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I defend the fact that the CRS is more known for its bad side than the good one. Don't you agree? If you do, which is quite probable, then don't you agree that, there was until recently NO mention of anything bad about it? Even after your changes, there is no fair proportion, and you have removed video evidence, that, although in a normal article would be out of place, in this very particular context are THE proof of that violence, showing it better than anything else. After all, Wikipedia's most important principle about information is verifiability... Now do you propose ANY better source for verifying the claim, especially one about a police force protected by the state? Please state your ideas in the discussion page of the concerned article, in order to reach a consensus, as it is the second time you are kindly asked to do so. --88.227.116.118 (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you have not "kindly" asked me to do so, you have first threatened me (rather laughably) with a ban and then accused me of having a bias. The issue here is what Wikipedia is for and how it works. I suggest you familiarise yourself with its methods and guidelines before entering edit wars. Wikipedia is not here for you to use for campaigning purposes. Anyone can post links to videos showing incidents and claim that they prove a general point. This is why it is not acceptable to do so here. Mezigue (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you wish to participate, there is a discussion going on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iron_Maiden#Iron_Maiden_the_truth_about_their_sales_records_.28Ultimate_Discussion.29 with the above proposals for revising the lede's album sales section. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may not selectively remove referenced information from articles as you did here per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. I have provided two additional reliable sources for the statement from TIME Magazine and The Telegraph. Please discuss the issue on the talk page of the article instead of removing the referenced information, especially when the article contains other information with explicit citation tags. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No censorship there (I'll thank you to assume good faith). The "source" you provided originally and have now reinstated is a story about the Nativity, completely unrelated to the claim about Carla Bruni. Accordingly I took your edit to be some sort of prank. I now see it was not and suspect you did a copy-pasting mistake while editing the reference code. Nonetheless the word "pornographic" does not feature in the Telegraph report you have now linked to. Nor can you say that Bruni is "banned" from the Vatican despite the dramatic headline from the Time aggregator as what we have here is a 3rd party claim that she was asked not to join a particular visit. I have reworded this more carefully. Thank you.Mezigue (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mezigue,

Regarding Half-Life 2, I meant that the plot follows the events from Half-Life. Eventhough it is a work fiction - futuristic post-apocalyptic science fiction to be precise - it does have its own history. Say, Star Wars for exemple, the Empire struck back in The Empire Strikes Back because A New Hope brought new hope right? I just wanted to get my point across; the article is fine without the phrase though, so I'll leave it the way you left it :) Happy editing, and kind regards, Soetermans. T / C

Well that's a bit "in universe" methinks. You want to use the words "back story" or "continuity", not history. Mezigue (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gnomes (South Park). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Rami R 10:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I was worried this would happen because the waters are a bit muddied in this case. I know the procedures and normally assume good faith, but in this case I found it difficult to do so for two reasons: first, the [original edit] by the IP is clearly nonsensical, and second they claimed in their 18:02, 16 March 2011 edit summary to have reported me for vandalism. But yes, edit wars are bad, etc... Mezigue (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit indeed wasn't good (nor were the later edit summaries), but you expanded the issue beyond that edit, making it a content dispute. You removed seemingly sourced information, at one time without an edit summary. It's hard to see this as not an edit war, even considering the IP's poor behavior. Rami R 14:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I've added a diff at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log#November 2010 explaining the reason behind blacklisting hurryupharry.org. If the blacklisting hinders you, we can try and narrow it down to only match the one link that was abused there.
Kind regards, Amalthea 15:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to remove sourced information about Dominique Strauss-Kahn you will be reported. He is a Jew. 64.136.197.17 (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report away, baby. Mezigue (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for removing all that material from the article, but left in some of it, and replaced some of it with material that is not permitted for the same reason. As I stated when I removed the material on the Dutch song yesterday, the source cited does not mention "Vunter Slush", its made-up nature, "kapoentje" or the gibberish nature of the Dutch song or the episode at all. Just because the source mentions Sinterklass does not mean that it supports your assertion in the article, since it doesn't mention anything in the article. This is called synthesized material, and is not permitted, because it is a form of original research. Sources must not merely mention the cultural artifact, but must reference the episode's use of it. Otherwise, you're making a personal observation about the content of the episode, which WP:NOR doesn't allow. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merci de votre soutien. Entre "esprit" et "sensible", les corrections incorrectes n'en finissent pas. Awien (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Je vous en prie. C'est vrai que ça dure depuis des années...Mezigue (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AH! I think I understand now. I was quibbling over the "literal-metaphorical / formal-functional equivalence" divide, but you were saying that "the wit" and "the spirit" BOTH translate as l'esprit, yes? --Michaeljpruitt (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. "To be witty" in French is "avoir de l'esprit". Mezigue (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mezigue, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As tiresome and synthetic as the Mail's attempt to create controversy is, that other sources (notably The Guardian) are also reporting it makes me think that we should cover it in the 'reception' section. This Guardian article helpfully provides some cynicism, which we can use. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would be probably better discussed on the talk page there. I'm really not sure the tit-for-tat between the Mail and Guardian is worth mentioning at all to be honest. They do this on a weekly basis. Mezigue (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I thought I'd bring it to your attention since you removed the section. The Telegraph are in on the act now. I haven't bothered to include The Sun. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a really nice job beefing up the article but I noticed that you are pasting quite a lot of the reviews into the "allusions" section, which is a bit of a problem outside of the "reception" section itself. You should use them as a source but not actually copy them word for word... Mezigue (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Crompton review was helpful for this section. It is a tightrope because any standalone 'allusions' section ideally include subjective 'reviews', but on the other hand the section must not be unreferenced or contain original research. Relatively short (67 words, in this case) neutral quotations are acceptable to avoid both problems, so long as quotation marks are used to clearly identify the author of the words. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start an edit war over this but some people would take issue with your blanket statement (in your recent edit to Wales) that "mountains are generally mountainous". In fact, many of my British friends would say that most of the mountains they've seen are merely hilly. Cheers, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 15:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that sentence was a joke poking fun at the poor wording (dangling modifier) I changed in the article, which stated indeed that the mountains are mostly mountainous. It appears in the edit summary, not in the article itself. Mezigue (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently your sense of humor is more finely tuned than mine. Or perhaps you did not notice the link in the word "hilly"? Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK sorry. They made a film about this, you know? Mezigue (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wiki rule I'm not aware of behind your removal of Lang & Mitterand's names? Your edit suggests I consult Giraud's Talk Page but I didn't find any discussion on the subject and came here. Please clue me in. Thanks. --Jumbolino (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you have found my explanation - I just wasn't quite quick enough for you! Mezigue (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm terribly sorry, but what I added distinctly different from what's in the article. In particular, the reference to the two judgements, which in fact were a diversion from the original criminal case. I would appreciate it if you don't censor the facts. Has the poor woman not suffered enough of that?

Ms. L's case was in fact a watershed in case-law such as concerns forcible medication, and the two Hein legal articles I referenced mention her name specificially in the "four part test" under U.S. law determining if a state has a "signficant interest" in drugging a person to a so-called state of competence. I am putting them back, and if you feel that the material is covered below (which it is not) then I suggest you make reference to the two Hein online (law journal) articles yourself.

Many thanks in advance.

"me".109.205.170.40 (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ray Bradbury. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.' --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 02:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]