User talk:Tallard

fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Tallard

Your contribution to Lactose intolerance

Hello,

Your contribution to said article contains some unsubstantiated "facts" regarding the prevalence and chemical properties of lactose in food products. Some seem to me highly unlikely, for instance, the claim that 90% of margarine products containing lactose.

In accordance with Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability, I kindly ask you to provide with sources for your claims.

Thanks,

--Sagie 14:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(Replying to your reply in my talk page)

Hello,

I understand you've been having certain problems with certain products, and I could argue about some of the claims you make, but I'm afraid none of these pertain to the point, which unfortunately makes most of your long reply irrelevant to the matter.

The issue here is Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. What is relevant in your reply is the last paragraph, where you say:

Finally, it is written that the purpose of the verifiability rule in Wikipedia is to prevent quacks from publishing alternate theories. This section (as is the case of many other sub-sections in Wikipedia) should not be subjected to a harsh enforcement of the rule as it is not it's purpose to present a new or alternate theory...'

First, I've seen nowhere any sentence resembling that "the purpose of the verifiability rule in Wikipedia is to prevent quacks from publishing alternate theories" (and while we're at it, what assurance do I have that you're not a quack yourself?), and it is not for you to decide whether "This section ... should not be subjected to a harsh enforcement of the rule".

Adding to this, you are encouraged to see for yourself in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, section 1 (Primary (original) research), that it is clearly stated that Wikipedia is not a place to publish your findings.

I understand that your intentions are well, but understand that this is not the place to publish these things.

Please provide sources for your claims, or otherwise remove them.

Thanks,

--Sagie 14:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

(Replying to your reply in my talk page)

Regarding your reply, I could not find any sentence in the policy liberating anyone from providing sources. Kindly quote the paragraphs that to your opinion liberate you from this burden.

Regarding your concern about the validity of "someone provides a weblink to a piece of information", this is clearly explained in WP:V, "Sources of questionable reliability".

The fact that this data is unverifiable makes it invalid in Wikipedia, by its policy, which were set not by me, neither by you.

I am not concerned "with splitting hairs in 4"; I am concerned with following the rules in this collaborative, educational, project; I'm concerned with the misinformation you seem to be spreading; and I could be concerned with a possible hidden agenda you may have against certain industrial products, some of which are mentioned by their name. I say that, not to implicate you with any such agenda, but rather to show you how your actions could be perceived.

--Sagie 18:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Melon (slang), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WP is not a WP:DICT

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 21:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Carleton, Quebec

I have removed the {{prod}} you placed on this redirect. Over 50 articles link to Carleton-sur-mer via that redirect, to delete it would break those links. If you want to edit those articles to make the link directly to Carleton-sur-mer then nominate it, that is no problem, but redirects are cheap and there is no reason to fix what isn't broken. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well my main concern is that other people may come around and want to add content once again to the carleton page. What is the process you mention of «nominate it»? I am not familiar with that.--Tallard 07:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally, if someone clicks on Carleton, Quebec they will be taken to Carleton-sur-mer, Quebec (should "mer" be capitalized by the way?) so its unlikely that someone would add content there. Typically, former names of places are left as redirects because (a) some people may remember it the old way Bombay -> Mumbai and just type in the old version and at least are taken to an article rather than a blank space just waiting to have content (see "c" below); (b) some information is copied verbatim from older sources (e.g., 1911 Britannica or the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia) which have old versions of a name so by wiki-linking names in the sources - particularly so when the place has changed hands in the intervening years: Königsberg -> Kaliningrad; and (c) we just would rather group all possible variations pointing to one article - this goes with variations in Romanization of names, variations of the name from various periods of times or variations on spellings, to avoid someone not seeing İstanbul or Stamboul and wanting to write an article on that obviously important city when a perfectly good article exists at Istanbul. So in some sense, deleting the redirect is more likely to invite creation of new (and duplicate) content at the Carleton, Quebec page than keeping the redirect. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I did the move for you. As for the location graphic unfortunately these are wiki-language dependent I spent a huge amount of time trying to get things to work for Turkish provinces, but alas failed. However, the good news is that there is a user User:Earl Andrew who has uploaded various maps of Quebec divided into municipalities (see Montreal) and he may help out - I haven't approached him but he seems capable of the task, willingness is something for which I cannot vouch - you should ask him on his talk page. Carlossuarez46 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think I fixed it, please advise if I haven't. Carlossuarez46 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Quebec nation issue

Hi! I've noticed you have added to the discussion on Talk:Quebec and, in response to the discussion regarding whether or not Quebec is a nation, I have replied with this. I would like you to read the discussion on the Talk:Quebec page, then read my response and leave your comments on it's talk page! Thanks for your input. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agar Spam?

To answer your question about appropriate links in Agar, I concur that listing links to recipies is not helpful to the article. The guidelines that apply are external links: do recipes add "meaninful relevent content" that enhance our understanding of the topic? (no), is the site directly related to the article's subject? (no) and what Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a repository of (recipe) links nor is it a how-to guide (which includes recipes, and by extension links to recipes in most cases).

In addition, the links to Rose's Kitchen have been added by an editor who seems to be here only to add links to that site. That site is supported by google adsense advertising, using the id pub-2740607705270813. There is a huge problem with conflict of interest editors trying to drive people to their adsense supported websites. This appears to be one of them.

Science Buddies appears to be an informative, on-topic site and the kits for sale are not objectionable; it was added by a good-faith editor. I leave it to people such as you who are more familiar with the topic to evaluate whether it enhances the article content. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick explanation re: Talk:Quebec

I've allowed myself to correct your spelling of "conquer" to "concur" (i.e., agree), as it was manifest to me that this is what you meant to say, but also fairly obvious that some editors might have a hard time figuring out the correct spelling and therefore the meaning of what you said. As correcting other editors' contributions on talk pages is usually frowned upon, I decided to at least give you an explanation of why I nevertheless did it, so that you can appreciate it was done in good faith. Regards, --Ramdrake 19:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think that thinking about this issue in terms of "us versus them" may not be constructive enough. I am assuming here from your writings that you are identifying with the French-speaking majority of people in Quebec. It is in my mind rather clear that a precise enough formulation of Quebec's nationhood can be forged to accomodate a majority of editors, if maybe not all of them — and consensus doesn't need unanimity.--Ramdrake 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A decade of bombings... resulting in at least five deaths

Not sure who proof-read that, but it makes the FLQ people sound like the most inept bombers in history, or that whoever wrote it had a very definite POV. I believe that the death toll of people dying from being struck by thunder in Quebec alone for those ten years was way higher... Thanks for pointing that one out, I had a good chuckle.--Ramdrake 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Arame

(1) I don't think there's a stub banner policy, but I usually see stub banners placed on the bottom of the article page. (2) See this. M&NCenarius 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink re Lactose Intolerance

Looking forward to your contributions, as you were talking about citing sources on Wikipedia I thought I would give you a link that might help you out Wikipedia:Citing sources. Good luck, and feel free to contact me for any questions you have.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tallard,
thank you for editing "Lactose Intolerance" in such a professional and objective way. To be honest, every time I look at it, there is another version online, sometimes it is completely unbelievable rubbish... I was already thinking about asking for protection for this article, as it is obviously 'edited' very often by dairy lobbyists, who delete any point about cutting dairy out of one's diet, even people with severe lactose intolerance have to 'train to consume dairy again' etc. Could you keep an eye on this page or pass it to any Wiki admin? An article like this should be protected, as it contains very highly discussed subjects... Best regards
--Reiskeks 21:49, 11 October 2007 (GMT+1).

Dear Tallard,
at least a sort of answer, I think the reversing tool of Wikipedia works good enough, nevertheless I usually save any writings on my HDD (it seemed faster to access for articles which are very often reversed and renewed). I just asked you for watching this particular article, as your contribution was very professional.

I am always having a hard time to cope with 'professional' English, I suppose I should contribute in German, but I left the German Wikipedia after the absolutely unbelievable deletion of dozens of articles about different Linux distributions, which was not even reversed for months, and the only reason for this was "those articles were not relevant" (among others, the major polish Linux distro and PcLinuxOS, the most user friendly, and number 3 or 4 on Distrowatch.com, short after Ubuntu, Suse and Mandriva, were deleted).

That is the reason why I started to watch all the pages, which write about lobbyists deleting and rewriting articles in Wikipedia. I think, as lactose intolerance is such a controversy, and there is so much money involved in this game, there should be any kind of monitoring or some control for the 'Lactose Intolerance' article. Wikipedia is the most accessed and most known Open Source page of the internet, and it one of the 10 most accessed and known pages in generally, alongside with such giants like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. Therefore, I think it has a certain impact on what people think about different subjects, and so, dairy lobbyists may be of course be interested in changing the 'unpleasant' parts of 'Lactose Intolerance' (even if this would harm the health of thousands of people who read the article). I know well that lactose intolerance is not a disease, but some of the symptoms may be very frightening, especially for people who already have poor health (cancer, HIV, Morbus Crohn, Diabetes etc...).

Best regards
--Reiskeks 11:50, 14 October 2007 (GMT+1).

Stuff

Hello there. The reason it looks like this is two-fold: when you answer someone, you should try to put your post as close as possible to the post you're answering, but without breaking it up. When several people all answer the same post, it can however look like a bloody mess. As far as 3RR enforcement is concerned, it's only enforced if someone reports it. If no one chooses to enforce it (for any reason), well it doesn't always get enforced... What can I say?--Ramdrake 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for the permission. I remember that Soulscanner took great exception to anyone doing that.--Ramdrake 20:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Sorry, I don't recall ever seeing the animation you refer to (even if I did, I wouldn't know where to find it). It's easy to get simple image editing software (like Adobe Photoshop or Corel Paint Shop). I doubt this is what you wanted exactly, but I gave it a shot and made this userbox. Just copy the code and paste it along with all your other userboxes.

This user lives in Southeast Florida.

Code:
<div style="float:{{{float|left}}}; border:{{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}}px solid {{{border-color|blue}}}; margin:1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:{{{info-background|white}}};" | style="width:45px; height:45px; background:{{{logo-background|white}}}; text-align:center; font-size:{{{logo-size|{{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}}}}pt; color:{{{logo-color|{{{id-fc|black}}}}}};" | '''{{{logo| [[Image:Hurricane Kate (2003)- Good pic.jpg|40px]]}}}''' | style="font-size:{{{info-size|{{{info-s|8}}}}}}pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:{{{info-color|{{{info-fc|blue}}}}}};" | {{{info|<center>This user lives in<br/> '''[[South Florida metropolitan area|<span style="color: #0000FF;">Southeast</span>]]''' '''[[Florida|<span style="color: #0000FF;">Florida</span>]]'''.}}} |}</div>

--Porsche997SBS 02:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you From the apostrophe abuser

Thanks for correcting me, I know better, but my fingers disobey me when I'm typing on my laptop :) yeah I know, excuses, excuses...Cheers--Tallard 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hee! Don't feel bad; we all make typos. :) I usually spend one day a week just cleaning them up, or they start getting out of hand. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

km² and {{fr icon}}

I'm not quite sure what you mean about km²; could you be a little more specific, please?

Currently there is no difference between {{fr}} and {{fr icon}}, but I'm trying to separate the two templates, so they can behave more like {{de}} and {{de icon}} — {{de}} is a message about the article being based on content from the German Wikipedia and {{de icon}} is the {{languageicon}} call, like {{fr}} and {{fr icon}} currently are; see Template talk:Fr icon#Language icon template refactoring for more details. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Yukon

There is no automatically updated page which shows statistics about vandalism, but there is Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. Also, in case of vandalism, you can warn the vandal with the templates listed at WP:WARN. If the vandal persists, you can file a report at WP:AIV. Hopefully, we'll have the FlaggedRevs extension on Wikipedia sometime in future, which will deter vandals. utcursch | talk 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Provinces visited userbox

Hi, thanks for asking! Yes, userboxes are made for public use and anyone can copy them. To use it, add {{User:Reywas92/Userboxes/Provinces Visited|#}} to your userpage wherever you want it. I see that you have already added other Canada boxes, but this one uses a pipe symbol to include custom information. Sorry I'm a little late; I've been on vacation in Arizona. Question: How do you come from Quebec, Yukon, and Newfoundland & Labrador? Happy editing! Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yukon Template

All you need is paint an IfanView. I'll go ahead and do it myself if you are still interested. Kc4 00:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Thanks for catching the vandal on my userpage. I just don't understand them. I wonder if maybe... I am in the middle of a little argument on the lactose intolerance page, where the other user is getting... POed, is it possible they are related? or is vandalism typically a random act?--Tallard 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. No, I don't think the vandalism to your userpage was related to your other Wikipedia activities. The user who did it was warned by me for creating a defamatory article (the usual schoolboy idiocy - insulting their classmates, that sort of thing). I tagged the article they created for deletion and placed a warning on their talk page. In retaliation, the same user blanked my user and talk pages, and apparently yours as well just because your previous message was the only one currently left on my talk page (I archive old posts fairly regularly). Obviously this vandal just wanted to cause more trouble and clicked the only other link in sight. Anyway, the guy is now permanently blocked from editing. I wouldn't take it personally - my user page has been vandalized many times in "retaliation" for handing out warnings. Just don't rise to their bait, and ignore them (WP:DENY them recognition). ~Matticus ^T_C 21:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not edit the comments of others

It is extremely rude and inappropriate to edit others' comments. The point about removing comments unrelated to improving the article does not substantiate removing/changing comments that you think are wrong. --Cheeser1 16:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)