User talk:Blue Indigo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Blue Indigo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hidden notes[edit]

Bonjour,

Au lieu d'utiliser des "hidden notes" pourquoi ne pas utiliser un "template", à savoir (par exemple):

"Barocque" [clarification needed]

ou bien

"Barocque" [citation needed].

Il est assez probable que les bots seront bien plus tolérants.

En tout cas, Jerome Kohl n'a rien à voir avec le comportement du bot.

Bien à vous,

Contact Basemetal here 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Paul Dukas name muddle[edit]

Trophy.png The Paul Dukas name muddle
Ah no! I contributed edits on Paul Dukas' family background and suggested - without any references or evidence to back it up - that his father Jules Dukas may have had a Greek Jew descendant originally from Ottoman-era Greek Macedonia. I thought Ottoman-Greek Jews might have adopted the name Dukas/Doukas under the INFLUENCE of their Greek-speaking Christian Orthodox neighbours. This MIGHT explain why there were and still are other Jewish families in Britain, France and Austria-Hungary who bear the name Doukas/Dukas, since many Jews from Ottoman-era Greek Macedonia are known to have immigrated to these countries. But this idea is really only an interesting line of inquiry and not historical fact.

It is important to emphasize that even among most of those Greek-speaking Christian Orthodox families from Epirus, Greek Macedonia and elsewhere in northern Greece - where the late Byzantine Doukai and Komneno-Doukai were most active - who have Doukas/Dukas as a surname (or additional surname) VERY FEW of these will even claim descent from the Byzantine-era noble family. Most of those especially northern Greek families who have the name Doukas/Dukas in the final or middle position do so simply because an earlier ancestor probably adopted it for prestige reasons. Modern Greece has not maintained a living aristocratic tradition, not just because the end of the 1967-74 military dictatorship led to the deposition of the Greek monarchy (which in any case was not indigenous to Greece) but because Byzantine Greek aristocrats in the Ottoman period tended to marry into the Ottoman ruling family or the noble families of Christian Orthodox Russia and elsewhere in Europe. Hope this helps those interested in the name Dukas/Doukas. Thanks. A Gounaris (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC) A Gounaris (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hotel Crillon[edit]

I think there is a small mistake in your edit about the Hotel Crillon. It is indeed a luxury hotel, which is temporarily closed for renovation. (See their website). The Navy is at the other end of the block, in the Hotel de la Marine. Keep up your great editing work! SiefkinDR (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Paris[edit]

Thanks, very good suggestion. I've done as you suggested. SiefkinDR (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Art and Sculpture[edit]

I agree with and like your recent edits to the section on art and sculpture; but wonder why Rodin doesn't get a mention, and maybe a couple of other modern sculptors. And why is the American academy listed under art and sculpture, if it teaches fashion and interior design?

Keep up your good work! SiefkinDR (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your word of appreciation and also your reminder of Rodin & "a couple of other modern sculptors." Quel choix difficile! As for the American academy: I have been questioning its place in an article that we are trying (with much difficulty!) to trim: keep under 180 000 bytes? Mission impossible!
Will return to article ASAP, which may not be today as there is life outside Wikiland!
Cordialement, --Blue Indigo (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Photography and dividing sections[edit]

As you suggested, I've added some more about photography- 1838 - first photo taken by Daguerre, 1839 -French Academy donates rights to technology to world - 1892 - first exhibit by the Photo-Club on Pictorialism at the Palace of Fine Arts. Cordialement, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I made a mistake on the date of the photo exhibit; it was 1894, and I moved it to that date. It seems to me that the Exhibit is the most important accomplishment of the Photo Club, and I don't want to have two entries about them, so I put the information about the founding and the founders in 1894. Odd that there's no article about the Club, though the article about Pictorialism has a fair amount about it. Besides the Dageurre picture, I put two entries regarding his early work.

Regarding the division of the different centuries, I plan to expand those sections some with additional sources, if I can ever get through the endless 20th century. Probably each century will have its own section.

Thanks again for your interest and help in the article. It's nice to know that somebody's reading it who knows the subject. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in subjects related to French history. It seems there are others interested & who know the subject. Will add additional data & also see if there is more on the Photo-club de Paris which, from what I gather, was quite an association (société). Here is a bnf gallica link to its first bulletins, starting in 1891.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb32727736w/date
Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior need to improve quite a lot[edit]

Your disruptive behavior at talk:Paris need to stop, it looks as if you're trolling. You've been doing nothing but bitching about other users in sarcastic tones for several days now. You complain about almost every edits other users make, but even when explicitly asked to edit you refuse to edit yourself.[1] Worse, you're not even presenting your arguments in a factual way, instead resorting to snide and sarcastic comments about other users [2], [3]. You do not have to agree with others, but disagreeing is no excuse for violating WP:FORUM and posting sarcastic opinions about others. The rules put in place by Fut.Perf. applies to you too.Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about other threads, but agreeing with another editors concerns does not come under WP:FORUM. Rob984 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Certainly not, and nobody has said it does. But refusing to edit while writing comments with the sole purpose of being sarcastic about other users does come under WP:FORUM.Jeppiz (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Raising concerns about others users' edits, in a sarcastic manner or not, does not come under WP:FORUM. Additionally, readers giving feedback shouldn't be discouraged. Rob984 (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Rob984:
Since you came here in support of me, I would like to thank you here for doing so. Merci!
Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Jeppiz:
Sarcastic comments?
Simply stating facts that others have stated on the talk page.
In my last comment on Paris talk page, that addressed to Rob984, whom I called "Bob", it was not sarcastic, I was being witty & saying what many of us have been saying on that very page, sometimes in a very angry tone, which I ask you to note I never use. I'll be witty, but never vulgar. If you think it is not a shock when someone comes upon en.wiki Paris page - remember an article that is read around the world, and by some pretty smart individuals -, and sees not even three lines for the 17th century, then goes to the talk page & reads all the reasons for not including historical events in the history of Paris, it may leave people to wonder what's going on with the contributors of that article, the extent of their knowledge on the subject & what the purpose is of even having such a section.
Refusing to edit?
Since May/June of this year, I have done extensive editing at the Paris article & less extensive but necessary on other articles, mainly on subjects touching France.
Up until the battle for Paris began, and I do not mean that of August 1944, my work had never been reverted, and not even a comma added or removed. Now, the work I have done for about six months on the Paris page has disappeared because some readers/contributors think the article is too long. All the removal has been done without ever having the courtesy of telling the respective contributors that their work was discarded - except you, I must say. Yesterday, when you shortened the 17th century, you removed part of my contribution of about an hour and a half before [4]. You were polite when you did it & wrote that we were welcome to put our contribution back. That was nice & I addressed a note to you in the Paris talk page, saying that I would not put back any of what you removed because someone would remove it anyway. I am learning that removing & reinstating work quickly leads to edit warring, and under the circumstances & the heated debates taking place on the talk page RE the history section, I thought it wiser, and still do, not to edit the page & bring my contribution back. And I will not touch that article before it is possible to work in peace. Going any where near Paris article or talk page right now amounts to taking a stroll on a minefield.
I believe that my note to you was courteous & see nothing wrong in the questions I asked.
In other words, I stand by everything I wrote. Blue Indigo
Blue Indigo, I have absolutely no problem with your opinions. I even share quite many of them. As you say yourself, the Paris article is a bit of a minefield and this may not be the time and place to be 'witty', nor personal. I'd recommend going for factual. It goes for everybody, of course.Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)