This user may have left Wikipedia. Equendil has not edited Wikipedia since 11 March 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
I reply to messages left on my talk page on the very same page, not your talk page. Please watch this page if you expect a reply.
A tough one to fix... though I think I did okay for not being able to read Croatian. Can you suggest what else I might do to improve this thing? Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 08:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles for 'Surrender Monkey' and 'Cheese eating surrender monkies' do not exist to legitimise hating the French. Noting silliness is not the same as supporting it. In conclusion, I can understand saying the article is not noteable but to say it exists to hate the French is pointless and wrong. Lots42 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reopening that non-neutral closure of the deletion debate. The editor in question was very belligerent in their reaction. Also could you point to any sources for the mall? I tried google but did not find anything reliable and then google scholar turned up nothing.Chuletadechancho (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help there, I reverted for reasons explained in the Afd page. EquendilTalk 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How was I being belligerent? I am considering that as a violation of WP:NPA. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only did Chuletadechancho violated NPA, he also made false claims on the deletion notice. In other words, he LIED. He claims to have searched for the place, and found nothing. However, I conducted a search that turned up multiple tourism articles about this place, including one from the Beijing Olympics official website. Chuletadechancho has nominated this page with malicious intent, and has lied profusely to other Wikipedians in a campaign on deception. Sanctions need to be taken! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for semi-protecting the page. These accidents occasionally do happen because the article is vandalized by 2 separate ip/user vandals in succession. Unfortunately Huggle doesn't have an option to restore to previous a reversion :( --Superflewis(talk) 13:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, well, best go manual when massive vandalism is occuring on one article. EquendilTalk 13:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to remind you that per WP:NAC, non-administrators shouldn't close deletion discussions unless they are nearly unanimous keep after a full listing period, or snowball closures. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like to point out that ultimately, what doesn't require admin tools doesn't require an admin, and WP:NAC is only an essay, the deletion process guideline (WP:DPR#NAC) being phrased in a more equivocal manner. I'll admit this was some kind of experiment though, if you think this should have been closed with a different result, I am interested in hearing it. EquendilTalk 05:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to revisit the discussion? Both Guy and I have proposed solutions for the dilemma. I symapthize with the dilemmas RC patrollers face and there ought to be a way to relieve some of the pressure. Best, DurovaCharge! 23:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, that's an interesting discussion, I will keep an eye on it and comment :) EquendilTalk 05:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...For having the brass ones to make "no consensus" AFD closes as a non admin. I'm still afraid of getting yelled at. (ZOMG yur not an admin) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I'm fearless! I got kind of yelled at though, as you can see above :) EquendilTalk 05:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to content dispute. Since the user has continued making POV/uncited contributions to Wikipedia, despite many warnings, I had thought it might be sufficient evidence to stop "assuming good faith". At what point does the user cross that "good faith" line?--Rsl12 (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, editing in bad faith is not considered vandalism either. While blatant disrupting such as repeated/extreme uncivility may be brought up on WP:ANI for attention of admins, you are likely to get sent back to dispute resolution if that's not the case.
There doesn't seem to be an *active* dispute here anyway, edits to Al Gore's Penguin Army video are months apart. Chances are you have not exhausted your first option yet, which is to discuss the problem calmly on the talk page of the article. EquendilTalk 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re some comments of yours at AfD, please note that Catholic Encyclopedia material is not copyright, the book being from 1913. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up for my attention, I got fooled by the copyright claim at the bottom of the page unfortunately :/ EquendilTalk 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I wonder if you are thinking of abandoning your proposal here? I'm in favour so I'd be interested to know your thoughts. --Kleinzach 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks, I've been quite busy lately and didn't realize it had received further replies, I will have a look of course. EquendilTalk 15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added a short summary. Everybody except WP:SS are obviously in favour of your proposal. Where do we go from here, I wonder? --Kleinzach 07:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like my proposal is going anywhere, I think partly because my intent was not understood and also because some people seem to be very protective over the whole stub thing. I'll just let it drop for now as it cannot be implemented with the current system anyway. I mostly wanted to test the water and see what kind of objections that would get. I'm a little worried we seem to have people who think it's a good idea to perform the same tasks multiple times. Not just categorization but rating articles too. It's even more worrying that people flat out fail to recognize the same tasks are being performed multiple times.
I'll make sure to revive this if we ever get better category queries, until then, I think the only way forward is to campaign for that to happen or get the work done, though given the main issue would be server load, an outsider is limited in what they can do.
There is also a separate and more fundamental problem with categories: they are hierachical in nature, a relationship that cannot be handled well in database queries. For instance someone categorized in "american people" (but not in "people") cannot be readily queried as "people" at the database level even though "american people" is a subcategory of "people". There are ways around that, but again server load would be an issue. EquendilTalk 02:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You redirected trusted computer system elsewhere, saying it is not a proper article. It is a proper article: the US government uses the term in a different way than the one you redirected it to, which I have not read them use yet (though maybe they do) and means something slightly different.--Dchmelik (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Equendil, I/we need your help. I am the editor who began working on the article Dan Debicella back in late September, attempting to replace copy lifted from the subject's website with some semblance of a proper article. The article has improved a great deal since then and I have been trying very hard to stay on top of it, but there seems to be an individual very motivated to protect Debicella's record who has constantly reverted the good faith edits I have made and was the same person doing that before I even came on the scene. Now they are accusing me of being someone I am not. I don't see this ever ending without some decisive third-party intervention. From what I remember, you were the first, or one of the first, people to realize what was going on. I'm not asking you to take my side or anything, just that you objectively take a look at the article and make any recommendations you see fit, or even just refer someone who could mediate this dispute. I'm getting really sick of it but I also don't want to give up because I know once I do the article will go back to the same crap it was in the first place. Any help at all is greatly appreciated. 64.252.251.75 (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your comment on the Reference Desk, "I'm out of the office", and was quite interested: what's the etymology of your username? Is it from Quenya, one of J. R. R. Tolkien's invented languages? I ask because (aside from enjoying his writings a lot myself) I saw the "ndil" at the end of your username, but I don't remember reading about any of his characters that have anything like "eque" or "equen". Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm a Wikipedian living in Paris as well. If ever you want to meet for a cup of coffee, give me a shout! Rhinoracer (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Jan 7, 2009 I accidently observed a vandal attack on Cinco de Mayo and I rolled back the most recent changes but I did not pickup on the earlier more subtle vandalism. I didn't feel qualified to fine tune the article. I looked down the list of recent editors and could not find anyone who seemed to be a seasoned caretaker. On Jan 8, you reverted the article to a month old version.
This raises the question: Who should the accidental Good Samaritan inform when an article is being repeatedly abused and needs attention by someone more qualified? (A quick Wikipedia search didn't answer my question.)
Revert and issue a warning on the talk page of the editor (anonymous or not). That will stop quite a few vandals from testing their luck further. Common practice is to use one of four level of templates ({{subst:uw-vandalism1}}{{subst:uw-vandalism2}}{{subst:uw-vandalism3}}{{subst:uw-vandalism4}}) to issue warnings, the fist level of warning is to be used when the editor can be assumed to have tested the edit feature of Wikipedia in good faith (in which case a templated welcome/help such as {{subst:welcomeg}} might be useful as well), the second level when the intent to vandalize is obvious, the third and fourth level when the editor has already been warned by prior levels.
If an article is the target of persistant vandalism from multiple editors (usually an anonymous user with a dynamic IP) in a short period of time, you can request page protection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
Always check successive edits by different IPs before you revert, or you'll often revert to a version that was already vandalized (see below).
Put articles you notice are frequently vandalized in your watch list to keep an eye on them.
In this particular case, Cinco de Mayo is a low traffic and relatively minor article, good faith edits occur occasionally, it is vandalized fairly frequently but not frequently enough to warrant page protection. Revert & warn is the standard procedure here, not much else can be done. "Recent change patrollers" (WP:RCP) usually catch basic vandalism and do so within seconds with semi automated tools but they can't and don't catch everything.
Finally, what I did was of a different nature, an editor (User:EspanaViva) who was seemingly editing the article in good faith many months ago has apparently decided he didn't like any alteration to what he must think of "his" article, and is logging now and then reverting the article to "his" last version with a spurious edit summary regardless of what changes have been made. On November 10, he reverted to "his" version from August, and again a few days ago. It went under the radar in November and I only noticed in late December so I went back to a November version and reinserted a couple changes made since then. I simply reverted his January 7 edit (edit summary should read "Reverted EspanaViva's-reversal-to-a-months-old-version").
Incidently, I reverted to a vandalized version that had not been correctly reverted (due to successive vandalism from different IPs) and someone else fixed that.
That was quite a long answer. Short answer : Everyone is qualified, fix Wikipedia as you go or join the recent change patrol if you got too much time on your hands :) EquendilTalk 02:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amigo/amiga Equendil. Gracias por su ayuda and merci pour votre aide. However, my friend, you keep changing the Cinco de mayo article to an incorrect set of statements. If you read the very extensive citations (that you keep removing), you will see that Cinco de mayo is not a "national holiday" in the ordinary sense of that term. It is a regional holiday in Mexico, and a relatively minor one at that. For example, government offices, banks, and businesses all stay open. There are a few celebrations outside of the state of Puebla - and they are small. The language that you keep removing is factually correct, carefully worded, and has extensive citations.
If you have persuasive citations that support the language that you are insisting on, please post those on my talk page, so that you and I can discuss them. If you do not have persuasive citations, then I'm going to ask you to accept the correct description of the day - that it is a regional holiday in Mexico, etc. EspanaViva 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound like I have a content dispute with you, but I do not. What I object to is the article being reverted to a version that is many months old, dismissing in the process *every single edit* that has been made to the article on the ground that they are "unexplained". That's a pretty poor rationale for a revert in the first place, and totally unacceptable for a massive one, especially seeing as edits have been made that are in fact properly commented in the edit summaries or talk page (at the very least by me). Now it appears you are objecting to very specific changes that have been made - not by me shall I add - to the article, I have to point out that mass reverting *every* single alteration to the article since you last edited it, including correction of the spelling or phrasing, categories that may have been added, and any unrelated change (such as mine in the 'history' section), is simply not the way to go. I invite you to work on the *current* article and make changes to what you think is wrong with it, not simply assume that the whole article was better the last time you edited it and revert to that. In short, please do not revert good edits with bad ones, that's quite disrespectful of the people who volunteer their time to the project, however minor their contributions may be, and it does not help improving an article. EquendilTalk 20:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear we're on the same page. I've made corrections consistent with your suggestions. EspanaViva 14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: French "out of office" on the language reference desk[edit]
Rest tranquil, my friend. Me, I took not the offense. Truly, I had fear of him giving. (Get it?) But, seriously, I think it was I who was too abrupt. Nice to meet you, mon ami. Your sightings are hilarious and so bad as to be hard to believe—"lighter", indeed. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equendil, would you be able to review the article Dan Debicella? I have tried to mediate this article about a local politician unsuccessfully. There are two partisans who continue to edit the page-- one very pro-Debicella, and one very anti-Debicella. The pro-Debicella editor removes information that might be perceived as negative to Debicella, while the anti-Debicella editor misquotes cited sources and uses biased language to make Debicella look bad. I have tried to create a neutral version based on the best of both, but would be good to have a second set of eyes on it--and possibly lock the page or at least bar these two partisans from continuing their edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBard2 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equendil, I have good reason to believe that TheBard2 is in fact Debicella himself. See the Talk page for Dan Debicella for supporting evidence. The Senator himself is posing as a neutral editor. 69.0.31.233 (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equendil-- thank you for stepping in. As you can see, both pro-Debicella and anti-Debicella editors are a little out of hand. I would encourage you to give a neutral review to the content of the article (as I believe I did), rather than the accusations of both partisans. I would also encourage a long-term lock on the page or stopping these partisans from editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBard2 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Debicella, I suppose you would consider me exposing your true identity and intentions to be "out of hand". Equendil, my apologies, I realize this is not the appropriate venue for this to take place; this is the last comment I will leave on your talk page regarding the matter. 69.0.31.233 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks It looks like between your input and a little tweaking on my end, this has become usable. I really appreciate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, unfortunately, I was wrong, what broke the template was specifying "Image size =" without a value. Well, it's fixed anyhow but... EquendilTalk 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
apologies for that.
I want to re-direct it but I have forgotten how.
I am under the wing of Rlandmann if you want bona fides —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Equendil. I noticed your contributions and took the liberty of adding your signature to this list. I hope that's alright. (Otherwise revert, of course). It's good to have native French speakers at the language desk! ---Sluzzelintalk 14:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, that's perfectly alright, I would most likely have added myself had I been aware of such a list, cheers. EquendilTalk 16:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been tempted to submit an RfD request for an article which has been a source of frustration for me, but haven't done so because it would probably just make things worse. I noticed your response to an RfD problem on the help page, so maybe you won't mind my running it by you instead.
The article is Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Syndrome, and my concern is comes across as fanatacism. I certainly do not dispute the importance of benzo w/d, but my reading of the literature (and, I will admit, my own clinical experience such as it is, I assure you I'm not insisting on the value of original research but it is hard to ignore what is before your own eyes) indicates that the most serious manifestations have been limited to patients with a history of high doses, very long-term use, pre-existing seizure disorders--not the average benzo user. Average low-level users do notice psychological withdrawal symptoms but are not in medical danger and can be tapered fairly quickly. As you will see if you check it out, the Wiki article is alarmist and repetitive in insisting that there is in fact a very high level of danger for all users unless the drug is tapered at a glacially slow pace. In the real world this assumption can keep some people on benzos forever.
There are over a hundred references in the article and I have tried approaching them patiently one reference at a time, pointing out where a reference does not say what the author claims. The editor guarding the article is adamant, nothing changes. In a related article (alprozolam) I added a couple of good references of my own to the section on withdrawal and the same editor changed what I wrote to distort what the references said. Should I just give up? It would be easy to do if I could get over the idea that real people are hurt by propaganda like that. I have doubts that an RfD would help. It would likely attract only those who have already made up their minds. Any advice would be welcome.Rose bartram (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the procedure to follow to resolve your dispute: First of all I have to point out there is no process known as "RfD" on Wikipedia (well there is but it's for deleting redirects, which is not relevant here), I expect you read what I wrote on the help page related to a process known as "AfD", which stands for "Articles for Deletion" where articles are proposed for deletion. This is not a course you can follow here, since the very existence of the article is not disputed. Wikipedia does have multiple processes for dispute resolution however (See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution).
I am not quite sure you have exhausted your first option however (discussing the problem on the talk page). I know it can be quite tedious to deal with an editor seemingly possessive about an article, but he doesn't strike me as blatantly unreasonable. What you might need most here is patience. Discuss every change you want to make on the talk page, try to find a common or middle ground where possible, particularly where there is no fundamental disagreement and altering / toning down the phrasing may work (as in this edit). If you feel this is going nowhere, then request a third party (either Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment).
No issue of original research here, expertise about a subject is welcome, as long as reliable sources are cited. EquendilTalk 15:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response and I see that I totally confused the issue by typing RfD when I meant RfC, and then repeating the same typo again. I think I really need to stay off Wiki if I can't get my fingers to cooperate any better than that! The "comment" process was the one I was thinking of, but I doubt that it would help even if I could type better. Again, I appreciate the reply.Rose bartram (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who can't analyze the structure of his native language, you gave a clear and helpful analysis of all those variations on "j'en ai trois ici" at the Language Reference Desk. As a native speaker of English who's working on improving his mediocre French, I'm always happy to see examples and context. Merci. --- OtherDave (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I really get easily confused though, I can barely tell an adverb from an adjective, tenses give me headaches, and I tend to think of a substantive as a type of food :) EquendilTalk 16:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Your Help Desk request regarding Template:Country data Chechnya[edit]
I didn't see the little flags in the section "Example usage", but now is ok. --Aushulz (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please revisit this discussion and also try to drum up consensus on what to do about the lines? SELFREF doesn't seem to provide the prohibition against lines such as these as I thought it did and the mass TFD resulted in a keep result. At the very least the lines should be replaced with {{Frenchtrans}}, imo... –xenotalk 20:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do when I've got some time. EquendilTalk 08:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equendil, since you promote Project Gutenberg on your page, why do you have a problem with people linking British Heritage's free online service?
Amandajm (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For pretty much the same reason I would have a problem with people linking the Project Gutenberg frontpage on every article, where somewhat related content might or might not be found on the Project Gutenberg site. Coming from, say, the article on Architecture, the PastScape frontpage is not offering further reading about that particular subject, just a search box to various data concerning English lankmarks. You might as well have linked to the same site from the article about history, history of Europe, history of England etc on the basis that the site holds historical information if you search for it. It's not just me either, another user left a remark on your alternate account's talk page regarding that link (you might want to identify your alt. account by the way, using {{User Alternate Acct}} or whatever). EquendilTalk 08:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Equendil. re website, I see what you mean. However, it is probably useful on some pages.
With regard to my "alternate account's talk page", I just took a look at it, and I assure you that I know nothing about it whatsoever. I don't find it necessary to have an alternate account.
I do have two accounts on Wiki Commons, because I first started uploading pics under my real name, which is not Amanda J M. Recently I have found that this wasn't as convenient as having both wikipedia and Commons under the same name, so I formed an Amandajm account, but maintained the first as well, in order to maintain pics that I had already uploaded and check the relevant messages.
The other account to which you have directed me has a name which is almost an anagram of mine (but not quite). I have absolutely no idea who it is. Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I just checked out the edits of the editor who is inserting all the links, and understand why you thought that it was me, operating under a different name. Several of them are articles in which I have been the major editor, and it was me who questioned you about it, not the spammer. No, this isn't the way I work; I'm very upfront. And yes, I agree that adding that link to every vaguely related article is spam. Amandajm (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry for having assumed the user I reverted was you (for all the reasons you stated indeed). EquendilTalk 14:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm wondering why the article keeps being edited for the subject Photosystem I to be redirected to "Photosystem." This article is not more than five hours old as of right now. I accidentally clicked on save rather than preview thus publishing the article before I was ready. I am trying to get this article up to snuff as well as get used to wiki at the same time. I have not yet figured out how to trim the fat off of my references list and I have some other issues to work out as well. That being said, I am not engaging in vandalism to my own page. I for some reason thought that if the author of an article edits it, he or she does not need to comment. I guess I didn't read all the guidelines. More important though, is that photosystem I and "photosystem" are not the same. The photosystem I article goes in to a bit more depth about photosystem I specifically whereas the photosystem article covers PS I and PS II on a slightly more superficial level. I feel that the photosystem article has its place as a broad overview of photosynthetic processes and as a gateway to more information about photosystem I and photosystem II, which has its own article. Any explanation would be helpful. Like I said, was not ready to publish yet, and new to wiki writing. Can you help me out?
Merci bien Botanicleve (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 2006, failing to understand redirects, an editor created four identical articles on Photosystem I, under different names (P700, P 700, Photo system I, Photosystem 1. It was a mere paragraph not up to standards, while the Photosystem article itself was relatively short, I informally suggested to merge the paragraph into Photosystem since there was no real reason to have separate articles and I and other users created redirects. I expect you fell victim to a trigger happy vandal fighter who seeing a redirect being overwritten, reverted you without giving a thought and gave you a warning with an automated tool. There is definitively no ground for an accusation of vandalism here however. Your view here is perfectly in line with the way the encyclopedia is built, with "main" articles giving a broad overview of more specific subjects covered in sub articles. It is generally considered better not to split an article on a given subject into multiple pages until it grows significantly though (then again, Photosystem II was already a separate page).
Anyway, you seem to have a proper page under work, I'll fix current redirects and I encourage you to keep working on it. I will move it to Photosystem I however, rather than Photosystem 1. Ignore the warning entirely. EquendilTalk 17:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note the existence of the pages P700 and P680. EquendilTalk 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. There is one other thing though. I need to use images that already exist in other wikipedia articles but I cannot find any way to cite these images as there are no references on the pages from which they come. How do I need to go about citing images that are already on wiki and under the GNU?
Thanks for your help,
-Botanicleve (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here but clicking on any picture on Wikipedia leads to a description page of that picture, for instance if you click on the drawing in Photosystem, you'll get to the page Image:P 700.jpg, you would include that picture in an article by inserting [[Image:P 700.jpg]] where you want it to appear, though you would likely want to indicate how you want it to appear (size, which side of the text, caption and more). For instance, I used [[Image:P 700.jpg|right|150px|thumb|example]] to display the picture on the right side of my reply. See Wikipedia:Extended image syntax for details. EquendilTalk 01:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equentil, moi, je commence à vous trouver bien sympathique... Frania W. (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merci! Je viens de passer un long moment à tracer et inverser les modifications de ce qui semble être une seule et même personne qui édite depuis son IP (User:167.206.29.162) et deux comptes (User:Qqtacpn et User:Niaps) et qui a apparement décidé d'ajouter sa section "Napoleon = Hitler" à un maximum d'articles, je vais continuer à surveiller et surement demander un checkuser. EquendilTalk 04:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop [user]? He has only made disruptive edits to Wikipedia. When I reverted his vandalism and left a warning on his talk page he then decided to attack me. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i am Willski72 and i have been trying to get Niaps to see sense just like you. How about forming an Entente Cordiale to get him to understand that he has to create his own articles if he is serious about this, and not change others that should either be left as they are or have one neutral sentence mentioning atrocities on both sides (both French Army AND Spanish Guerrillas.Willski72 (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems that [167.206.29.162], Niaps and Qqtacon are allied on this issue, they have all worked together to create an article on the murdered man.Willski72 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i read an article about the death of the Don and others which was very one sided to say the least. I think waiting to see what the administrators do is a good idea. I expect they will put up stiff resistance as they are very passionate on the issue, but they will have to be good to get out of this one.Willski72 (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNUSP a brainf**k derivative? What? Have you ever programmed in SNUSP? I wonder why you agreed in the deletion of the article, if you are not able to distinguish between brainf**k and SNUSP. By the way, C++ is a derivative of C. And LOLCODE exists still! --Ittakezou0 (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not "programmed" in SNUSP, the reason being esoteric programming languages such as this are merely designed to be amusing Turing-complete languages, not for actual development. That's not relevant to my delete !vote anyhow.
Stating something is a derivative of something else does not imply they are the same.
From Esolangs.org "Core SNUSP is essentially Brainfuck with a two-dimensional control flow" [1]
Yes C++ is most definitively a derivative of C. A *notable* derivative.
I have never edited LOLCODE or otherwise taken part in its AfD's or DRV's as far as I remember.
Mentioned it above, but please note there is a perfectly fine "wiki" for esoteric languages out there: EsolangsEquendilTalk 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should exist a wiki for every material rejected by this one; and at the end, for both material that is here, and the one taht was rejected... For any of the content of this wiki, it is possible to find another source (it is a requirements for articles, isn't it?), so what this wiki is for? Maybe for the lazy one who can't learn searching but in a unique index... sad future for the humanity I see. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You commented on the talk page of this article. I can find the phrase in a late 19th century work by T Peet and something around 1950 by a Bruce Dickens. The reference just added about mother goddess is not only by someone who I'm dubious about, he doesn't actually use the phrase. I'm tempted to take it to AfD. What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In order to clean up Category:Coord template needing repair, would you mind if I changed an instance of {{coord}} in User:Equendil/Paris timeline?
There's an extra pipe in
{{coord|48|51|38|N|2|21|30|E ||region:FR_type:landmark}}; it needs to be
{{coord|48|51|38|N|2|21|30|E |region:FR_type:landmark}}.
There's also a typo: |format=dmg for |format=dms, but that one doesn't seem to matter!
—WWoods (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I fixed them. EquendilTalk 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi stop quoting incorrect numbers from biased sources about religious minorities in France and EU. By doing that, you are the one that is vandalizing ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapitop (talk • contribs)
I am not quoting anything, I'm reverting your edits. *You* are altering referenced material in contradiction with said references, with no justification whatsoever. EquendilTalk 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop vandalizing wikipedia with your false lies. Go educate & get fact & then edit. STOP using dubious & your self invented "so-called" reference materials ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapitop (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Equendil, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Kaolin (band), has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Koavf. This has been done because the page seems to be about a person, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Koavf. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Koavf (talk·contribs) 09:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this note because you participated in this TFD. Some of these have been re-nominated here, where you may wish to comment. Thanks, –xenotalk 14:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Equendil, Lebrouillard has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Tu gères en anglais dis moi ! Tu ne voudrais pas traduire quelques articles avec le projet traduction ?! Lebrouillard (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equendil you have done a great job on List of current French Navy ships. I have some queries on the classification of the Aviso's and also the matter of re-listing the Porte-hélicoptères Jeanne d'Arc (R 97). Perhaps you could have a look at the articles discussion page as I have outlined it in full there. Thanks. Felix505 (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted the text [Aviso class. A sloop, (or light frigate) tasked for coastal anti-submarine warfare, patrol and defence including strategic submarine support and off-shore deployments.]. I hope you find this appropriate.
A more detailed response is on the talk page. Thanks Felix505 (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some section heading renaming going on recently at List of current French Navy ships with frigates getting tagged destroyer and aviso's getting attention both as frigates and corvettes. I have returned the section headers to the earlier descriptions but it may need some monitoring and maybe some (Talk) discussions on the talk page if the problem does not go away. I found the Aviso's described as "Aviso (corvette) (light frigate)" earlier today. "==Guided missile frigates/destroyers== ...The French Navy has three frigates currently active in an anti-aircraft role with a fourth currently on sea trials...." was the other instance I reverted today.
As we engaged in some degree of discussion on this matter on the Talk page we would have a reasonable argument to put forward that the matter has been discussed and consensus on the matter agreed to in regard to this article. Knowing the way these things can go I thought it best to seek your engagement sooner rather than later.
Regarding Jeanne d'Arc (R 97) some recent citable info turned up on the net so the article on the ship has been updated to some effect. Have a look over it if you have the time. It could still use some decent documentation of the actual life of the ship but at least the end days have a bit more resoulution now. Felix 01:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It's either "hundreds of meters" or "a hundred meters", but not "a hundred of meters".[2] Which are you trying to convey? Fences&Windows 20:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A hundred meters, fixed it, thanks. EquendilTalk 21:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Equendil. Just so you know, I went ahead and fixed a few minor errors with the geographic coordinate metadata. By the way, good work on that page. -happy5214 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free rationale for File:Maupiti Island (game) Titlescreen .jpg[edit]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Superskweek.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
_Titlescreen_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
