User talk:110.20.234.69

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (110.20.234.69) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref name in Yaoi article[edit]

Hi, thank you for your work in the Yaoi article. Two of the ref names you added are "McLelland_2000_136" and "Nagaike03" which don't exist. Could you add the ref's or correct the ref names? Otherwise, the tags will have to be reverted back to {{Citation needed}}. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, 110.20.234.69. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

December 2014[edit]

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi there.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.--220 of Borg 09:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting posts on talk pages[edit]

Please also read WP:Indent. Regards, --220 of Borg 09:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, 110.20.234.69. You have new messages at 220 of Borg's talk page.
Message added 10:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

220 of Borg 10:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

exclamation mark  I have answered your last query on my talk page. You may find you can edit that page now. --220 of Borg 11:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
For helping to copyedit, make, and Edit Request, improvements to the highly visible article, 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, despite sometimes being unable to edit it due to page protection.
(Possibly for taking my advice too! ).
- 220 of Borg 05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you "... added a lot of good info .... before the page was locked down." Proves that there are good IP ('anonymous') editors out there. Well, I knew that as, I mentioned somewhere, I edited as an IP for 2 years. Static IPs are goooood!--220 of Borg 05:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You 'answered' my Barnstar on my talk with:
" LOL, thanks - this is really frustrating. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "
Just 'moving' it here to keep the discussion on one page. (Discussions that 'Ping-Pong' between pages can be hard to follow! ) There's also the advantage that you get notified about it, without needing a talkback! Also, I didn't notice you had posted there until I saved my post-Barnstar comment here. Just a query is this accurate? IP addresses are not as anonymous as you may think! One reason to register an account perhaps?--220 of Borg 05:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft[edit]

It is entirely appropriate to remove redlinks where it appears that an article is unlikely. I eventually found your draft for the subject. Next time, it will be much less antagonistic if you just say you're working on a draft. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bail[edit]

Great work on the Bail article. It is a much needed complement to the hostage one and difficult to do. And thanks for the barnstar! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your question on my talk page to keep the conversation together. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Religion for Atheists (January 1)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Becky Sayles was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! 110.20.234.69, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, 110.20.234.69. You have new messages at Becky Sayles's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bail Act 2013[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Bail Act 2013 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Iselilja (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you attend to these suggestions? Then note on the nominations page that the reviewer's concerns have been addressed. After that, the article will be ready for the DYK queue. Cheers, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on this article. It also looks like you have solved the referencing question. The answer is give all refs a name (like this: <ref name= xxx>) and then re-use that name with the closing slash (like this:<ref name = xxx/>). I usually use the author's name as the ref name. Sometimes other identifiers are better, although personally, I find that vague identifiers like "Ref1" or "Ref2" are very hard for editors to work with if they come back later, so I think that something identifiable is better. Apologies for delay in response. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on getting this article up to such a high standard! It makes a valuable and timely contribution to the encyclopaedia. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lake at the End of the World has been accepted[edit]

The Lake at the End of the World, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bail Act 2013[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Religion for Atheists (February 20)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:
This draft is entirely too detailed. A plot summary for a book should contain only a few paragraphs of the general outline of the book. It should not contain an in-depth view of every point and counterpoint presented in the book (even if those views are paraphrased).
You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Religion for Atheists has been accepted[edit]

Religion for Atheists, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Huon (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 10 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man Haron Monis[edit]

Good work , here. - 220 of Borg 06:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think there's still more to be mined from that source, but at least it's in the article, with some key points about Monis's entry into Australia, security guard licence, legal ability to carry guns in '97 and name changes. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Copied from my talkpage.[reply]
I notice however that the referencing may need to be tightened up. That siege report might become unavailable at some time, as far as being accessible via the ABC site, though the ABC seem pretty good at not 'moving' their stories around, or just deleting them as some sites seem to do. The source should default back to the original report, (with page number) not to the ABC 'story'.
I found this surprising:
This is not mentioned in the ABC piece, which is why there is a need to reference back to the original document with page numbers. It's available here (1.7 MB), and here, the NSW Gov. response is here (202 KB), all in PDF format.
I had a NSW security licence at one time and thought that there was no way, without a demonstrated special need, extra training, and extra probity checks, that he would have been 'issued' a firearm. In this case I am wrong! 220 of Borg 04:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder - I'm finding that the automatic ISBN citation maker (cite book where it fills it in just from the ISBN) doesn't work for the joint review yet. (And in the nsw govt response to the review, there's rumblings of amendments to the bail act...) Shame that the security guard licence was within his grasp.--110.20.234.69 (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Copied from my talkpage.[reply]
I don't use that auto-fill much, must try it again sometime. I think a similar function exists for Digital object identifier (DOI) numbers. As for the security guard licence, that may be a wake up for them. A lot of foreign born people get into the security industry. They do checks on criminal history, take a pile of finger, hand, palm prints etc, and presumably 'run them' through their systems looking for anything untoward. Certain convictions ie. assault will likely get you denied a licence, happened to one guy in my training class. But that's hard to do when they aren't from Australia!
• Any information in the report on where he got the shotgun from?
• Suggest you answer on this page. Use {{reply|220 of Borg}} to ping me, if you like. 220 of Borg 06:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Place Siege: Joint Commonwealth – New South Wales Review, Chronology page 12 .
June 2012: Monis’s application for a security guard licence in NSW is refused on the grounds that he is not a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a class 1ACG security licence. This assessment was informed by advice from within the NSW Police Force, including information about the postal service offence charges.
So they finally got wise, after renewing it several times! 220 of Borg 06:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@220 of Borg:

Seems so - like no-one had the full story on this guy. (Probably not helped by the multiple names he used...) The review even seems to miss out on the dates he was married to Noleen Hayson Pal for. I'm a bit confused as to where we could put the 2012 refusal of security guard license in his article - it doesn't seem to fit under any of the section headings in his 'life in Australia'? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Wickham (May 24)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tikuko was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
TKK! bark with me! 19:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I read english but I am not at all fluent in english writting. Mais si vous me traduisez, vous devez pouvoir me lire en français! Le plus simple est de supprimer les références en milieu de phrases, les déplacer en fin de phrases ou de couper les phrases : see corrections in "Genesis of the Character"
J'ai utilisé une édition Bentley de 1853 en ligne pour les références (Pride and Prejudice). Vous utilisez P&P on Wikisource, il ne faut pas mettre 1853 mais 1813 et peut-être une référence plus précise que le chapitre : indiquer la ligne, par ex pour "a readiness at the same time perfectly correct and unassuming" (ch 16, 112-113)
Il n'y a rien d'original (=TI sur fr:wiki), tout est sourcé ! Mais j'ai cherché des sources en français (Lydia Martin, Massei-Chamayou : Thèses de doctorat édités). Il est vrai que les articles sur en:wiki sont plus courts, moins détaillés, moins "littéraires" que sur fr:wiki. Alors cut, cut, cut, if you like !-Eymery (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This addition (not in French): Elizabeth looks forward to his sparkling conversation, not realising the imprudence of believing a man who is a master of conversation isn't a puffery, a peacok term ? - Eymery (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ce serait plus sûr pour rester en contact si vous créez un compte ! Je peux, éventuellement, vérifier tout l'article pour replacer les références en fin de phrases. Mais à mon rythme! Libre à vous de le rendre plus "light" !
Sur fr:wiki, on ne reprochera pas à un contributeur d'avoir du "style" (Il faut cependant éviter un ton enthousiaste ou trop laudatif!) et il est normal de faire un travail approfondi quand on vise un label, car le niveau d'exigence pour un AdQ (Featured article) est plus haut que sur en:wiki. Les articles sont aussi plus "lourds". Facilement 80,000 octets (bytes) et jusqu'à 150,000 octets paraissent normal (exceptionnellement, plus de 200,000 octets, ça ne choque pas, comme pour Orgueil et Préjugés) ou tous les articles sur Dickens (faits par un universitaire à la retraite). Il faut aussi savoir que la "vraie" Jane Austen est plutôt mal connue en France (sauf de ceux qui la lisent en anglais, of course). Son "understatement" est très difficile à traduire. Or beaucoup n'ont lu que "P&P", en français, dans une traduction très connue, mais pas très fidèle, datant de 1932, et ne voient que l'histoire d'amour sentimentale entre Elizabeth (so witty!) et Darcy (aloof). Nous avons fait volontairement des articles "pointus" sur ses oeuvres pour les francophones qui n'ont pas accès à toute la littérature en anglais la concernant.- Eymery (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wickham[edit]

  • Some corrections in Bibliography : Pierre Goubert is an homonym, not the still living specialist of Jane Austen. For Representation of Money in Jane Austen's Novels, To Be and To Have is not exactly what means L'être et l'avoir = The Being and the Asset (but you lose the pun !) -20:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eymery (talk • contribs)
Two men named Pierre Goubert who both study Austen ? NO ! The one who is on wikipedia (1915-2012) was a French historian, a member of the Annales School, a important specialist of the 17 and 18e centuries. The other defended his thesis of doctorat (Jane Austen : étude psychologique de la romancière) at the University of Rouen in 1974 and is now a (good but academic) traductor of Jane Austen at Gallimard. He oversaw the two volums (2000 & 2013) of Jane Austen, Oeuvres complètes in Bibliothèque de la Pléiade (to be edited in Pléiade is the summum of recognition for an autor, French or foreign !) This new traductions are better than the previous, but La Pléiade is very very expensive! (some of these traductions are reedited in Folio - Gallimard Pocket-books)-Eymery (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relu parts 1 -> 3. Quelques corrections mineures (voir historique). Traduction soignée, mais que je trouve parfois un peu trop littérale. Cela dit, vous avez parfaitement raison, les articles consacrés à Jane Austen sur en:wiki sont parfois indigents. Mais j'en pense autant pour ma part en ce qui concerne beaucoup d'articles littéraires sur fr:wiki !-Eymery (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all! Vous avez pu remarquer que l'article Wickham a été labellisé il y a 4 ans et que depuis il n'a pas beaucoup été retouché, en tout cas, pas sur le fond, mais je vais sûrement utiliser l'article de Robert Mai (JASNA, winter 2014), pour Willoughby aussi, un jour... (les articles sur les personnages de S&S sont encore loin d'être labelisables). Autres renseignement sur Pierre Goubert dans ce fichier. Il est normal et judicieux que vous cherchiez des références à des sources anglaises là où j'ai privilégié les sources françaises ! -Eymery (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vous traduisez "La première apparition de Wickham à Meryton permet à la narratrice de réunir les quatre protagonistes masculins et se nimbe de mystère aux yeux observateurs d'Elizabeth" par "The first appearance of Wickham in Meryton allows the narrator to bring the four male protagonists together and cover Elizabeth's eyes with a halo of mystery." Je ne suis pas sûre de l'exactitude de "cover Elizabeth's eyes with a halo of mystery" (The interaction Darcy/Wickham seems very mysterious to Elizabeth's perceptive eyes)
Est-ce un Travail Indépendant ? (ie original research)
Jane Austen a écrit (ch 15): The whole party were still standing and talking together very agreeably, when the sound of horses drew their notice, and Darcy and Bingley were seen riding down the street. On distinguishing the ladies of the group the two gentlemen came directly towards them, and began the usual civilities [...] Mr. Darcy [...] was beginning to determine not to fix his eyes on Elizabeth (!!!), when they were suddenly arrested by the sight of the stranger, and Elizabeth, happening to see the countenance of both as they looked at each other, was all astonishment at the effect of the meeting. Both changed colour; one looked white, the other red (lequel ? Wickham blanc de peur ?). Mr. Wickham, after a few moments, touched his hat -- a salutation which Mr. Darcy just deigned to return. What could be the meaning of it? -- It was impossible to imagine; it was impossible not to long to know.
Sur fr:wiki, il n'est pas interdit de s'appuyer sur la source primaire, mais Margie Burns y fait allusion. Est-ce que ça suffirait comme source ?
Merci de me prévenir pour Tom Jones, mais vous avez le droit de faire comme vous voulez, je ne suis pas propriétaire de l'article ! En outre, on peut supposer qu'un anglophone connait le roman de Fielding et peut facilement voir le lien subtil entre Wickham et Blifil (ce qui n'est pas le cas de beaucoup de francophones !)-- Eymery (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • La formulation frôle le TI, c'est sûr : Vous ne trouverez pas la phrase sous cette forme chez Massei-Chamayou ni chez Linda Hall, mais on peut les utiliser pour sourcer:

- "il utilise sa bonne mine et la bonne éducation reçue pour faire illusion". Massei-Chamayou(p.329) le range, avec Willoughby, parmi les chasseurs de dot et cite dans P&P (ch 46) ce qu'en dit Elizabeth : "He has every charms of personn and adress that can captivate a woman"
- "Il a des défauts beaucoup plus graves que les autres mauvais garçons des autres romans". Massei-Chamayou(p.345) le traite d'anti-héros au comportement résumé par un adjectif qui fusionne son rapport à l'argent et à la sexualité", l'adjectif profligate (dans le double sens de prodigue et libertin)
- "redoutable manipulateur du langage" peut être sourcé par Linda Hall "Master of conversation"
- "il est aussi le seul qui joue imprudemment gros jeu" Massei-Chamayou(p.346) signale que tous sont des dépensiers impénitents, mais si JA choisit de faire de Wickham un joueur impénitent (a gamester), pour elle, cela veut dire qu'il est "peu sensible aux notions de responsabilité et respectabilité". Pour Linda Hall il est "The man who can be bought" (188)
- "et il tourne plus mal qu'eux": Linda Hall (190) signale que Willoughby finit riche ("and found domestic felicity"), Franck Churchill "gets everything he wants", mais Wickham "is not so fortunate" Vous trouverez peut-être aussi de quoi sourcer sa calomnie chez Margie Burns.- Eymery (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "Intelligence in Pride and Prejudice", but not logged in I can read page 54 only. Mais c'est important que vous trouviez des sources en anglais ! - Eymery (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Timeline of yaoi concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Timeline of yaoi, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News about Wickham[edit]

Some remarks written today (er... yesterday, now) by Azurfrog, here about Submission declined on 24 May 2015 by Tikuko. An administrator on fr.WP, he leads and advises me since 2009. He wrote, about Draft:George Wickham :
Je pense que l'annotateur se laisse entrainer par sa propre vision non neutre, non factuelle de ce qu'est un essai et un travail inédit (OR). C'est vrai que l'article fait appel à pas mal de termes louangeurs, mais sans qu'on puisse de mon avis parler de « non neutralité » ; quant au travail inédit, encore faudrait-il que notre critique se soit donné la peine d'identifier les passages qui pourraient être qualifiés de « synthèse inédite des sources citées »...
Maintenant, ce que je pense, c'est que l'article paie un peu le fait d'être écrit par une IP, qui n'a pas le crédit suffisant pour faire admettre ce type de rédaction moins dépouillée qu'il n'est d'usage sur en:WP, alors qu'ici (i.e. sur fr:WP), chacun sait que tes articles reflètent scrupuleusement les sources, même si tu as su « lier la sauce » par une rédaction plus soutenue.
Drafts correspond à nos pages de brouillon, proposées en relecture sur fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux/relecture. Mais, pour y être intervenu un certain nombre de fois, je peux te dire qu'un article comme George Wickham y serait salué par de chaleureux encouragements et des félicitations sincères, pas par cette critique assez gratuite et non constructive mettant en cause le manque de neutralité et la présence non démontrée de travail inédit : la pauvre IP qui a traduit l'article se retrouve bizutée par un ancien qui semble jouer un peu trop les gros bras... On est assez loin de Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Have a nice week-end ! – Eymery (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, people seem to object to an entire article for a "minor character" ? Funny indeed! in Template:Pride and Prejudice, you can see some "minor characters": Mr. William Collins and Lady Catherine de Bourgh, more "minor" than Wickham ! Le problème, c'est que tous les articles consacrés aux personnages de JA sur en.wk sont très "légers", même pour les principaux (c'est futé de développer Anne Elliot par exemple, mais il y a 3 ans, Anne Elliot en français n'était pas beaucoup plus développé). Pour que Draft:George Wickham soit considéré comme tolerable, il faudrait, dans un premier temps peut-être, soumettre un beaucoup plus petit article, plus factuel, moins littéraire, quitte à l'étoffer plus tard, peut-être créer votre compte (Ça laisse plus de liberté pour créer directement des articles, les développer ou les traduire !) et trouver un "parrain" sensible à la littérature {;-) – Eymery (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hello there!. From Azurfrog on my fr.wk user talk, today at 10.43. He says some remarks very alike my own:

Je reviens sur l'affaire de l'article sur George Wickham en anglais, qui me semble au point mort et que je trouve vraiment assez effarante :

De façon générale, la WP anglophone est plus tolérante que la WP francophone, plus technique aussi (donc, en sens inverse moins accommodante lorsque les recommandations, les guidelines ne sont pas respectées). Elle est notamment plus tolérante vis-à-vis des tentatives d'auto-promotion (c'est ce que je lui reproche d'abord et avant tout), comptant sur la force de frappe d'un nombre astronomique de contributeurs pour débarrasser rapidement les articles de leurs aspects promotionnels, tout en en développant les aspects encyclopédiques.

Mais ici, c'est le monde à l'envers : on a un article sans aucun problème fondamental, avec au contraire des qualités encyclopédiques évidentes, « emprisonné » dans l'espace Draft où il semble soumis au bon vouloir d'un seul, qui ne s'est même pas donné la peine d'identifier clairement ses critiques !

C'est ça qu'il faut casser : en retirant de l'article tout ce qui peut sembler contrevenir aux guidelines, on accule le « gardien » de l'article, soit à en accepter le passage dans l'espace encyclopédique où il vivra sa vie, soit à se retrouver contesté publiquement (j'ai parlé de la « water pump », mais la possibilité d'un recours devant les administrateurs de la WP anglophone existe aussi, en mettant en avant la violation de WP:DON'T BITE).

Can I help you for that ? – Eymery (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have Vivien Jones' edition of Pride and Prejudice, Penguin Classics, 2003 (isbn: 978-0-14-143951-8). There is some minor quotes about Wickham : "shocking impropriety of Lydia's irresponsible attachement to George Wickham" (xiv), "Elizabeh has to learn to revise her first impression [...] of the unscrupulous Wickham" (xx), "after reading D's letter, E fiercely castigates herself for wilfully misjudjing both D and W". (xxv) "W remain remote" (of Pemberley). (xxx) "D is instrumental in returning Lydia -and W - to a kind of respectability. Wickham, a vestigial exemple of the old rake figure, is effectively disempowered as the new alliance, between Darcy's wealth and influence and Mr Gardiner's professional expertise, acts to garantee public morality and order." (xxxiv) Other sources for english references : you can see sparknotes, also some things about Wickham in Norton critical edition and Barron's Educational Series, and perheaps more in Annotated Pride and Prejudice. — Eymery (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Wickham (July 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Wickham has been accepted[edit]

George Wickham, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ! — Eymery (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

If you edit without an account, your IP address (110.20.234.69) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 03:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request for Tasmanian Devil[edit]

Hi, thanks for edit request for Tasmanian Devil. Special appreciation for information on where to put it and for the proper formatting. I would highly recommend that you sign up for an account, as you clearly know what you are doing. It will also help reduce the burden on other editors from cross-checking the information you provide. Of course, I understand the reasons why you may not wish to sign up and in that case, thank you for continuing to support Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page or you can reply below since I will now watch this page. Inomyabcs (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply on my talk page. I do not have permissions to unprotect a page. The original admin who protected the page has retired, so the request to remove the protection can be placed at Requests for page protection. This article was pretty popular for vandalism so be aware it is entirely likely that it may return quickly if the protection is lifted. Inomyabcs (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I noticed you were successful in getting this unprotected. Looks the vandalism is pretty light so far. Glad it worked out. Best wishes. Inomyabcs (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely, this controversial article about religious issues was protected to minimize wiki-battles over how many devils can fit on the head of a pin, and whether then answer changes when the devils are rapidly spinning.  :-)   75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ingress FAQ refs[edit]

Well, I'll just keep plugging away at them a bit at a time. Thanks for the heads-up. Thnidu (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu:, thanks for that. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Watching the show, thanks for your work on the article so far! :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider creating a wikipedia username?[edit]

I've been on WP for nearly 10 years but never before until now has my watchlist asked me to review and approve article changes by anonymous IP accounts. I've apparently reviewed/approved your changes for Joe Hockey. Would you be willing to do both of us a favour and create an account considering your high contribution level? If you're trying to hide your identity, signing up for a username won't compromise that, but will give benefits to the both of us! Timeshift (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the approvals @Timeshift9: - I gather that the pending changes level of protection is a relatively new phenomenon, sort of halfway between semi protection and being completely unprotected. Thanks for your kind invitation to register, too. I haven't registered for a variety of reasons - by editing as an unregistered Wikipedian, I can make it easier for other unregistered people to edit, as well. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected as much. Timeshift (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least I'm trying to help the encyclopedia, right? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i'm just frustrated that I seem to have become the lucky one dealt the hand of sole crucial conduit to your editing abilities. Or maybe I don't understand the system yet. Timeshift (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new system, it'll take time to get used to it. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - @Timeshift9:, it seems like only around 6000-odd people have the qualifications to accept pending changes - so that could be why you always seem to get stuck with mine. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Timeline of yaoi concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Timeline of yaoi, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Timeline of yaoi[edit]

Hello, 110.20.234.69. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Timeline of yaoi".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bail Act 1978 concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bail Act 1978, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:110.20.234.69&oldid=1141325796"