User talk:Mezigue

Welcome!

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

Ken Livingstone

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

Quake 3

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

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

Mark Steel

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

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

Smurf Language

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

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

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

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

José Luis Munuera

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

Spirou et Fantasio albums

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

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

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

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

Harry's Place

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

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

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

Characters of The Adventures of Tintin

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

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

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

That notorious prisoner Sirius Black

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

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

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

Note

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

Gainsbourg (Vie héroïque)

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

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

Deletion of sourced content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iron Maiden: Discussion of Album Sales: 70m or 80/100m, or worded to include certified and (as claims) 70, 80, and 100

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

Carla Bruni

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

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

Half-Life 2 "history"

Hi Mezigue,

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

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

March 2011

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

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

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

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

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

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

hurryupharry.org

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

Thank you

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

DSK

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

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

Crack Baby Athletic Association

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

L'esprit de l'escalier

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

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

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

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

Request for your perspective on SOPA

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

A Scandal in Belgravia

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

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

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

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

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

Mountanous Mountains

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

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

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

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

Moebius & Politicians

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

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

S. Lindauer

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

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

Many thanks in advance.

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

You're Getting Old

Please stop removing the passage from the Lead of the article. It is not "unsourced". If you bothered reading the article, in particular the Critical reception section, you'll see that Sean O'Neal of The AV Club expressed this idea. It is indeed sourced, and relevant. It is not "meaningless". Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Harry Potter characters

Thanks for clearing up this edit - I got a database lock when I tried, and it reverted the change instead of removing the entire entry as I meant to do. I've only just had chance to check on it again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly was my edit to Seamus Finnigan undone?--Sage94 (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about this one back in June? Well because a) it's a visual gag from the films that's not in the books at all and b) it was terribly written. There's no such word as "pyrotectics" and the first phrase is actually impossible to understand. Mezigue (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In recent edit to James Potter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Phoenix_%28fiction%29), you state that he, Sirius & Peter become Animagi "as well" (to accompany Remus safely). However, a werewolf is NOT Animagus, since the change is out of their control. As this was a deletion of my earlier clarifying edit, I will not make this correction myself, and will leave it to you (most of the rest of that edit was correct). But "As Well" incorrectly implies that Remus was an Animagus. bgix (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Explanation request

Hello,

Could you please explain why you’ve reverted my six edits? What was wrong with them according to you?

Thanks,

— MetalGearLiquid ^[chat] 23:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC) PS : Si tu préfères me répondre en français, ça me convient également.

Well they appear to be a non-existing format. They certainly didn't produce links! I'm afraid I don't understand what you were trying to do. Am I missing something? Mezigue (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any issue with the Template:Lang, or with any of the other templates I’ve used in my reverted edits? (such as Template:es, Template:fr or Template:nl)

Or maybe accessibility improvement just looks like heresy to you?

How about asking about something you don’t understand instead of reverting when you just don’t grab something?

Regards, — MetalGearLiquid ^[chat] 04:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Companion

My edit on Companion (Doctor Who) was a little misread by you. Amy wanted the live the rest of her life with Rory so that s what I meant by she wanted to die with him. Many thanks -  Willrocks10  Speak to me  12:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Raising the Bar (South Park)

Please stop blanking plot content from the Raising the Bar (South Park) article, as you did repeatedly here and here. Plot synopses should completely summarize the plots of episodes, and this includes subplots. This includes the closing scene of episodes, and you have not offered a valid rationale for omitting them. Closing scenes do cease being part of a story's plot simply because they constitutes "gags", and indeed, most South Park episodes close with gags. That does not meant that we do not include them. If you feel the description of the episode of the closing scene "makes no sense", then rewrite it. You don't delete it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not "blanked plot content" and I have offered a valid rationale for removing that part, which you know very well since you dispute that rationale! The closing scene is a simple gag about James Cameron's arrogance where he claims to be simple in a very arrogant manner. Telling a gag in a plot summary is clunky if you explain why it is funny, and absurd if you do not, which is why it is better not to. That scene adds nothing to the story whatsoever apart from the gag. Mezigue (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you.

Dreaded Walrus takes revenge on you. And please stop reverting Mary Sue edits over again and again.

The reason I revert those edits is that they are poor. Once you are bored of insulting people and making unconstructive edit, feel free to check out this interesting page. All the best.Mezigue (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I implemented a range block that hopefully will at least slow him down. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Mezigue (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited François de Vendôme, Duke of Beaufort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, bot. You're a good bot. Mezigue (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your revert in Pip article

Hello Mezigue, you reverted my good faith edits in Pip (South Park) article and after thinking a bit about it I agree that probably it really was just unnecessary addition of details from my part (and beside that presented in a bad way - in all three cases I did insert the text between parenthesis), especially for two of them. But I think that the fact that Pip has already met Mr. Pocket at Ms. Havisham's garden is maybe an important piece of information. What do you think? Thanks for any response. --Wayfarer (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Cameo

Per d'Artagnan's article, that's exactly what a cameo is (cf. "Literary cameos" in the English Cameo appearance article or the "Extension du sens" in French wiki one.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry, I see I linked to the article page before, not the talk page. The discussion is at Talk:Blood libel#Blood libel is a "false" accusation. I contacted you because you've commented on this issue in the past. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't invade other wikis

Someone has invaded another wiki and vandalised it repeatedly, in ways that seemed at a glance to point to you. If this was you, could you please refrain from doing so? If not, do you have any idea what might be going on? 108.4.131.62 (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

When/where have I ever done any of this? Mezigue (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I would assume this is a reference to the recent occurrences on this wikia, which have included, in roughly chronological order:

• The addition of the category 'Twilight' (which we don't have) to a page by the IP 67.253.128.147; a similar edit was recently (May 16th 2013) made and reverted on the Mary Sue page here at Wikipedia, apparently by 108.32.108.36. I mention this because you appear to have some connection with that page, based on comments further up your talk page.
• The replacement of the opening section of the wikia's 'Mary Sue' page with the opening of Wikipedia's version by 182.18.209.5. The edit summary was, for some reason, 'F------- Go away Huinesoron. Let Mezigue dominate it. Mary Sues cannot be killed by PPC. They remain immortal. Those perfect characters are not sues anymore. GOd made it.' Huinesoron is my username, and for the record I have no idea what this is referencing; however, it does include your screenname.
• A copy of your entire Wikipedia talk page being pasted into my wikia talk page by the same IP.
• A template we don't have, ((Babel|fr|en-5)), being added to the top of my wikia talk page, again by the same IP. I note that this template appears on your userpage.

I'm sure you can understand why some people might suspect you, although I note that your userpage has previously been blanked by the same IP, which strongly suggests it wasn't you; either way, I intend to talk to whoever posted the first comment to you here, since it was full of assumptions and unwarranted aggression. I'd also appreciate any thoughts you might have as to why this IP (who, on further investigation, appears to have it in for you) has decided to target the PPC as well as you. Huinesoron 86.174.86.146 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oooh brother. A little while ago an unregistered user here on Wikipedia got upset that I reverted their edits to the page "Mary Sue" and vandalised my page repeatedly with some nonsense about another user's name "Dreaded Walrus". Now it appears that person is doing the same on your site using my name. I guess it's the Internet equivalent of throwing a snowball across the street and hiding behind a tree when someone else is passing. No idea who they are except the obvious: some sort of troll. All I can say to you is that I have never edited PPC.Wikia or even heard of it until now. All the best. Mezigue (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the mixup, then; no aggression meant, really, but you can see why I'd be wondering what the heck. Thanks for clearing the matter up. I think I mistook the vandal's comments for identifying themselves as you. (I have rephrased the initial post to seem less "bite-your-face-offy". I didn't want to delete it outright because the thread would make no sense. Sorry again.) 108.4.131.62 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You have to have a sense of humour on the Internet ;) . Mezigue (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harry Potter universe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• coextensively]] with it but mostly hidden from the awareness of the non-magical "Muggles"). The plot of the series is set in contemporary Britain, but in a veiled and separate shadow

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit re Melody Maker on the Fields of the Nephilim page

Hello there!

Just wanted to get in touch about the Melody Maker edits, although I agree that there were several spoofs and parodies in the mag, this particular one is notable because it developed in to a regular weekly feature 'Nods Corner'. Would you consider allowing the post to stand in this basis? Kind regards :) TheFlowerpotMen (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Why did you reverse my contributions?

Hey there, I just saw that you revised two of my contributions. But you didn't give an explanation, so, bing a new user, I would like to ask you why.

The first edit concerns the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Park_characters Under "Major characters" I added by whom Dougie is voiced (Trey Parker). Of course I did credit the source.

I also added some quotations to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_%28novel%29 Again without giving a reason, you deleted the whole quotations-section (including those that were already there before I added more...)

Why did you do this?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edidator (talk • contribs) 17:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry yes, I should have explained. Regarding Island, a page on a novel should not include a bunch of quotes on their own like this. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate to see what to include. You might want to add interesting quotes to Wikiquotes instead. Regarding South Park, wiki sites are not a reliable source. Mezigue (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

Is there a reason you reverted my edits on the Susan Lindauer article? Or were you attempting to revert some other edits? Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted to the last good version. YouTube links are not acceptable, nor putting her dubious claims in the intro. Mezigue (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A Study in Pink

Hello. You have twice removed my addition for Mike Stamford. The reason I had included him through my edit was because his character is part of Sherlock Holmes canon. He is mentioned in 'A Study in Scarlet' as young Stamford who introduces his old friend Watson to Sherlock. Similarly, in this episode, he is responsible for the introduction of Watson to Sherlock. Also, I would not call Stamford a friend of Sherlock because according to the books and the BBC version, Sherlock does not have many friends. The friendship between Watson and Stamford is obvious in the opening minutes of this episode. There is also a fleeting reference to Stamford in 'A Scandal in Belgravia' (in the part where Sherlock is deducing Watson in Irene's living room). So giving the reasons I have cited above, would you agree to the identification of Stamford in the plot section of this article? PurpleHawthorn (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The point is that a plot summary has to be as concise and helpful as possible (see WP:TVPLOT). For that reason, it is not necessary to name a character who fulfills a single function and does not appear again. Naming the character makes the reader believe the character is important and their name might reappear in the section. Mezigue (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Tintin and the Picaros

Hello Mezigue! We seem to have a bit of a friendly edit war at Tintin and the Picaros. Rather than you continuing to revert me, can we please take it to the article's talk page? Thanks! See you there. —Prhartcom (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of actors who have played the Doctor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Stop reinserting defamatory comments about a living person made by an unqualified "testimonial" maker into Susan Lindauer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not defamatory given that she was judged unfit for trial, and it comes from a reputable newspaper which sources it. Mezigue (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible Edit War, Eighth Doctor/Ninth Doctor

I would like to speak to you about your edits which remove my edits, your reasons and how we can come to an agreement on the matter to prevent an edit war.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

A request for comment has been started on an issue you have been discussing at Talk:Doctor_Who#Tables.Blethering Scot 21:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Harry Potter characters

I noticed you're reverting a bunch of my minor edits to the List of Harry Potter characters. May I ask why? I reviewed the Talk page before making any changes, and all of the characters I've added meet the criteria: They appeared, by name, in the books. There is no requirement that they be major characters or even have a speaking role, so far as I can tell. Including all book characters on this page is, I believe, useful reference information, since the lists on the harry potter wiki don't distinguish between books and video games (very annoying!).

In addition, I have edited some entries for consistency, adding "in Harry's year" as appropriate so that it's easy to identify the characters that are in Harry's year at school. This is highly useful reference information and, so far as I can tell, is not available anywhere else. That is, there is not "List of students in Harry Potter's year."

Did you perhaps revert them because I wasn't logged in so they showed up under my IP addresses (128.230.232.119 and 128.230.235.211), so you thought they weren't legit or something?

Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 16:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Basically, this page used to be a gargantuan, unreadable and uncheckable list of every name ever mentioned in the books or other related sources, and it has been agreed to trim it down to characters that play a part or appear more than fleetingly. Since you weren't logged in I am not sure which precise edits you are unhappy about, but it would be better to discuss them on the talk page there. Mezigue (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Okey doke. Please see Talk:List_of_Harry_Potter_characters#Students_in_Harry.27s_year (hope this links correctly...)

Rarebit goofups

Sorry, I meant to hit "undo", but the "revert vandalism" button magically appeared in its place as the page was rendering. Anyways, please make sure you've consulted the sources cited before accusing another editor of synthesis or OR. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment request

Hi. I'm trying to avoid another edit war with a certain editor and would like to properly get content restored to an article. Could you comment on whether it'd be appropriate to do so at this discussion? Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 January

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

• On the Dieudonné M'bala M'bala page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Harry Potter (character)- Magical abilities and skills

I don't know why you deleted my edit and put up your own revisions. I just edited again but, differently this time and everything I've written is true and if you don't believe me you can check the sources I listed and see for your self. As a matter of fact here's her quote she gave during the "World Exclusive Interview with J K Rowling," South West News Service, 8 July 2000.

Q: If Harry had a magic duel with Hermione, who would win ? (Doyle Srader, Nacogdoches, TX) A: Very good question! Because until about halfway through Azkaban, Hermione would have won. But Harry - without anyone really noticing it - is becoming exceptionally good at Defence Against the Dark Arts. So that's the one area in which, almost instinctively, he is particularly talented. Apart from Quidditch.

And he did earn an 'Outstanding' D.A.D.A. O.W.L. and Hermione didn't- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince chapter 5, (page 103). He was also only one of twelve students able to make it to N.E.W.T.-level potions and here's the proof. "When they arrived in the corridor they saw that there were only a dozen people progressing to N.E.W.T. level."- Half-Blood Prince chapter 9, (page 182). He also did earn Exceeds Expections on his Transfiguration, Charms, and Potion O.W.L. to Exceed Exceptions at Ordinary Wizardry Level is good McGonagall herself complimented Harry on his O.W.L. grade "I was pleased with your Transfiguration mark, Potter, very pleased."- Half-Blood Prince chapter 9, (page 175).

He was able to perform Unforgivable cures as well "Imperio!" Harry said again; his voice echoed through the stone passage as he felt the familiar sense of heady control that flowed from brain to wand." Harry using the Imperius Curse on the goblin Bogrod, during the 1998 break in of Gringotts. He also successfully used the Cruciatus Curse on Amycus Carrow when he spit in McGonagall's face. Using Unforgivable Cures takes "nerves and ability" as stated by Severus Snape- Half-Blood Prince chapter 28 (page 602).

Please don't change my edits again for no reason, thank you. Please respond on your talk page. MrRaina (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)MrRaina

sherlock Holmes

So what was that all about? Shouldn't you bother to first read, second understand and then only decide whether to resist tha ever tempting urge to press undo? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No. that was a poor edit. Mezigue (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing unused header "Fandom" Rocky Horror

I was expanding faster than my "save" and should have removed that unused section unitl it was developed with some referenced content. That is one part of this subject that reliable sources mention more than almost anything else so we should cover it in an encyclopedic manner if possible....but sections do need content.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoniverse article

Please do not reinstate unsourced, unverified material to the Whoniverse article. The reasons for that material being removed/altered are on the discussion page. In addition, I suggest you read WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:BURDEN. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are the one making unfounded claims in your edit. You have no idea whether Lofficier was the first to use the word in print. Your new intro was extremely clumsy, focusing as it did on his take. Mezigue (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you see the thing with Wikipedia is that it requires WP:RS that can be WP:V. In this case, the article had to focus on Loccifier's take, as his was the only WP:RS that could be found. Wikipedia must state what is said in the source, and must not use WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. As Loccifier's was the only source(and your or G S Palmer's personal views don't count as a RS), it naturally followed that the article must be based around his writings. In case you actually want to help with the article, I found another section from a book(interestingly called "Unauthorised and Unofficial") which, while not using the term "Whoniverse" does give another guys' overview of the same thing. The article has now been locked due to the edit dispute, but maybe some of this stuff could be incorporated into the article when it is unlocked? Despite what you may think, I am actually trying to improve the article to a standard that is Wikipedia-worthy, and someone merely reinstating reams of unsourced POV and OR is disruptive and time-consuming. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the IP is now back, and is trying to put too many tags on the article. ([4], [5], [6]). Would you like to help out so I don't have to pass 3RR? G S Palmer (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a clear violation of WP:MEAT. And, as I already noted, that is a template, not tags. If you cna't even tell the difference between a tag and a template, maybe you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia? 41.132.48.255 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy." And furthermore, this is not meat puppetry, it is notification of an editor who has been engaged in the discussion. Speaking of meat puppetry, what shall we say of your canvassing of unrelated editors to sway the deletion discussion for Tat Wood? G S Palmer (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not canvassing. It was alerting people who had edited the article, as well as related articles. Which is something you yourself should have done. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

[7]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Mezigue I'm sorry for any trouble/discomfort my notification may have caused you. G S Palmer (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That was a joke! I find it very hard to take all this very seriously. I do keep an eye on the article obviously but the tagbombing doesn't really bother me, so long as the article remains nonsense-free. Mezigue (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre formatting?

Hi. What is "bizarre" about my use of {{cn}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at what it did on the page. In any case you are not supposed to tag your own edit with "citation needed"! If you are just guessing something, don't put it in the article. Mezigue (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry? What am I supposed to be "looking at"? I didn't tag my own edit. I do not guess. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I now realise I misunderstood what you did because I've never seen the tag used with the "reason" parametre. Apologies. Mezigue (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

communication

Mezigue I need to talk to you. contact me at wehrmkid@gmail.com

George Weasley's second son (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You can talk to me right here, or if it's about an article on that article's talk page. Mezigue (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad Wolf reverting

Not sure why you reverted the Bad Wolf addition(s). Could you clarify? ThanksDocob5 (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Because that was pure interpretation on your part. Pretty odd too : "Bad Wolf" is not a persona. Mezigue (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't like the word persona either, but it the best I could think of when adding the information. But I'm still unclear as to the interpretation part since the character introduced herself as "Bad Wolf"? ThanksDocob5 (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to André Popp may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''André Charles Jean Popp''' (19 February 1924 - 10 May 2014)) was a [[France|French]] [[composer]], [[Arrangement|arranger]] and [[screenwriter]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Magical creatures in Harry Potter

Hello, Mezigue. You have new messages at Talk:Magical creatures in Harry Potter.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mezigue. You have new messages at Miss.Indecisive's talk page.
Message added 00:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Characters

The information is not 'wrong' though- the book says Harry marries Ginny, and Ron marries Hermoine? Have you even read the books? I don't understand how it's "not in the series".

Miss.Indecisive (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I read that book two weeks ago, have just checked again. The last chapter mentions "the little family": Harry, Ginny, James, Albus, Lily; and "a group of four people": Ron, Hermione, Rose, Hugo. It doesn't say anything about any of them actually being married, although it does speak of parents, brothers, etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ha I was just wondering about that and planning to check. But it's actually besides the point: they are not married throughout the series. Mezigue (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Tintin in Tibet

Hi Mezigue, good to talk with you; I have seen you around for years. I saw your name come up today when researching an edit you made to this article years ago--and then you helpfully appear at the article. May I please direct your attention to a point made on the article Talk page, relating to use of the word: "anthropoid", and then may I solicit your response made about it? See mention of the word here: Talk:Tintin in Tibet#Pre-FAC review. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for kind words. Have added a couple of remarks to the talk page there. Mezigue (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Giscard d'Estaing

Show your sources. You deleted material which was sourced. You failed to cite the wikipedia policy justifying it. No comment in talk page. I had three sources. Please show one. Just one. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I moved the mention of nuclear power to the section about his presidency as it is more relevant there. As for the campaign that you mentioned, it was a public service announcement campaign to urge people to save energy. It had nothing to do with either Giscard or nuclear energy, which is why I removed it. Mezigue (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Giant photo

Can you help me? I don't know how to make it smaller. --Youngdrake (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi - I'm not completely sure a picture is necessary on this page but the relevant tutorial is here: Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial Mezigue (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Besides that, there is WP:EIS. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Be free of the vandalism on Wikipedia

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Guardian&action=history - 95.27.96.8 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC).

Indeed. Mezigue (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Dumas

Mezigue, prior to making changes that scholars have determined to be true, please at least skim or better yet read, the novel Georges by Dumas, examine the story and its plots then make an educated decision, thanks for your time. Dumasproof (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What scholars? You need to source such things, otherwise it looks like original research on your part, which I suspect it is. Mezigue (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Dumas edit

Sir or Ma'am,

If you need any assistance in obtaining a copy of the Dumas Novel Georges, I am more than happy to assist. I think it would be great for you to read and understand why many scholars attribute many of the plots and ideas to The Count of Monte Cristo, I think both of our goals on Wikipedia is to have truthful, unbiased, and factually supported information available to the public. Dumasproof (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sir or Ma'am,

I have plenty of information from scholars and would be more than willing to share with you, additionally please review Mr. Rypinski's review of Georges. You must understand that Georges was not as popular in France because of its subject matter (race relations) at the time and many have not read the short novel.

I would never use my personal research on such a very important matter. I have the utmost respect for Wikipedia and individuals like yourself trying to make the free encyclopedia a better place.

Arthur D. Rypinski, review of Georges, The Alexandre Dumas père Web Site, www.cadytech.com/dumas/work.php?key=153

Dumasproof (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, please familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia works. In particular :WP:OR is crucial here. If scholars have argued that The Count of Monte-Christo reuses the plot of Georges, you need to list them as sources. Just a phrase on a web site is not good enough. Linking to the book is not good enough either. Also mentioning this in the context of the controversy over the authorship of Dumas's works is synthesis. Mezigue (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Count of Monte Cristo

Did you read the wikilinked article? There is a clear source in Georges (novel) that support the assertion. Also, you probably know that edit warring is bad, so I've decided to take it up for discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

See my answer just above. The novel is not a source to claim that. Nor is one sentence on a web site. Mezigue (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Nicolas Sarkozy

How was this much information changed or updated without ANY changes to the sources? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just a new office added at the top and all previous offices shunted down one slot, isn't it? Mezigue (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, got it, complicated template list, but I see that it was fairly straightforward update. Apologies for not seeing this sooner. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. 22:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

dumbledore

is there a reason you dont like my edit? i won't revert but it briefly mentions his great aunt's fiance and his horklump fetish on harry potter wikia--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

*Sigh* I am sure it does, but it's rather off topic. Mezigue (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OK I'll keep that in mind :) --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mezigue reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What is your objection

Hi Mezigue, what is your objection with my edit at The Adventures of Tintin? As I was researching my Tintin sources, I learned that Book 10 belongs in the earlier period, not the middle period where I originally placed it in this article years ago, as I mentioned in my edit summary, where I gave the source book and page number. I don't understand your edit summary which says "originally* published in colour"; that is true, Book 10 was the first to be originally published in colour, as the sources and the article say. If you have a source that contradicts anything here, please reference it. Prhartcom (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I apologise for my edit summary that made indeed no sense: I completely mistook the nature of your change because I looked too quickly at the "difference between versions" view [8], which when a table is being modified can be misleading. In short, I thought you were claiming that Tintin in the Congo was the first originally published in colour. This is totally my mistake. Having said that, if you're going to divide the stories into periods, it would seem to me that The Shooting Star does indeed belong in the middle period as it was published in Le Soir (Volé), in a new format etc... Mezigue (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah. then that is no problem. I appreciate all the work I have seen you do on the Tintin articles; thanks, Mezigue! Prhartcom (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your adjustment to Manuel Valls

Hi. Thanks for helping adjust the Manuel Valls translation. After translating the passage I could see that it was a little POV and under-referenced. However, I put it in anyway since it was in the French version, and I thought it might be better to include it rather than not include it. I also agree that there was some POV stuff there already etc... So thanks for your efforts to fix all that. It is better in that respect.. BUT: I don't think it was bad translation though. 1. Why did you think it was a bad translation? 2. Also, why kill his quote? It seems useful. 3. Do you have any tips for future translation efforts? Martinspolitics (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. The bad translation was the reference to "Muslim veils" which doesn't really mean anything in English. (The French media use the expression "voile musulman" in a rather confusing way to describe sometimes headscarves and sometimes face-covering things.) Generally, I trimmed the section because I thought it was now out of proportions to the overall size of the article. Which particular quote did you mean? As for general tips for translation, I think many mistakes come from sticking too closely to the original sentence structures and translating word-for-word. I would suggest maybe reading a few articles in the target language on the topic before translating stuff, to pick up the expressions used. Mezigue (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. You are totally right. I was completely aware that there are those more specific terms for the 'veil', which I would normally use myself in English. But apparently the french debate doesn't make distinctions of that kind? Anyway, you are right about the risky translation of that word. The quote is his quote about "the 'veil' remaining an important fight for the republic". Maybe you could put that back in. PS. Surely it being out of proportion is a reason to gradually translate the rest of the french article?Martinspolitics (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Magnussen

No, I did not misunderstand what he says. Watson was talking about the hard copies when he said "So there are no documents then. You don't actually have anything here" and then Magnussen answers "Well sometimes I send out for something if I really need it, but mostly I just remember it all. A reporter would be of no help if you need proof. As Magnussen said afterwards "Proof? What did I need proof for? I'm in news, you moron. I don't have to prove it, I just have to print it", he doesn't need proof for that purpose since he can just print his knowledge, but in case of slanderous lawsuits, he'd need proof to win or he'd lose a ton of money. I doubt hes stupid enough to overlook that fact. STCooper1 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well you did misunderstand because clearly he has no hard copies and this dialogue illustrates it. That's the whole crux of the plot; if he did have them elsewhere Sherlock or the authorities would just have to find out where. Mezigue (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, he did not say he has no hard copies, just that he relies mostly on memory, and his words relate to that, not having no hard copies. Magnussen could easily have a carefully chosen place somewhere to hide them where nobody could ever find them. I could name out a scenario that makes that perfectly believeable. But no, I did not misunderstand what he said. STCooper1 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

He did not say that he has hard copies. You dreamt the hard copies! He has no documents. Mezigue (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say he said "hard copies", I said he referenced them, which he did when he said "Well sometimes I send out for something if I really need it, but mostly I just remember it all". He answered Watson's comment about there being no documents there with that, so his documents, his hard copies are somewhere else and he referenced them with that sentence. He just did actually utter the words "hard copies" STCooper1 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but again, that is your interpretation of that sentence. He does not ever say that he has anything anywhere else. Mezigue (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me go over it. Watson said "So there are no documents. You don't actually have anything here" and Magnussen answers "Well, sometimes I send out for something if I really need it, but mostly I just remember it all." We know Watson mean't the hard copies for a fact because he said "documents". Magnussen said he sends out for "something", not "someone", if he really needs it. He factually didn't mean a person therefore, and the second half of his sentence proves he was talking about the information as he said "mostly I just remember it all", which means that what hes talking about pertains to his mind and the things he knows. That, together with Watson's inquire about the hard copies and the fact Magnussen said this in direct answer to that inquire, proves he was talking about his evidence. His physical proof. So no, its not just my interpretation of that sentence as thats the only thing the sentence can mean that makes since. STCooper1 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it proves nothing! This is entirely conjecture from your part... about fictional events. He does not say that he has documents anywhere. Mezigue (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again, although I'm through talking on this subject now. And again, you weren't paying attention. I didn't say he mentioned hard copies or documents literally, I said he referenced them with that, and he did. STCooper1 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on 9/11 conspiracy theories

Your recent editing history at 9/11 conspiracy theories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWN

You don't understand the rules of grammar, you don't understand the core policies of the encyclopaedia, and you're deliberately compromising the quality of the encyclopaedia. This is vandalism. Stop it. 200.83.178.121 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You're funny. I don't understand the core policies of the encyclopaedia? World's Biggest Pot/Kettle. Mezigue (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

While i do agree with you that your revert is correct, you could probably do to be a little less hostile. VictorLucas 23:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Which one of us? Mezigue (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

With regard to reverts, Mez. With regard to hostility, both of you. How's about we cut it out and call it a day, alright? VictorLucas 23:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Mezigue. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Describing The Guardian (newspaper) as being of the centre-left (as fact).The discussion is about the topic The Guardian (newspaper). Thank you. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that dispute (about centuries-old), clearly annoying you ("Jesus!"), I'll leave it be. I'm too much of bloody pedant! Again, sorry, Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Apt...

...doesn't mean "has the aptitude" in any of the dictionaries I've looked it up in. The OED online site gives three definitions: "Appropriate or suitable in the circumstances", "Having a tendency to do something", and "Quick to learn"; none of which quite fit the point of the sentence. Merriam-Webster is similar. "Adept" definitely does mean that, though; is there anything wrong with changing the wording? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 09:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The main reason I changed it back is that the phrase "adept at" already appears elsewhere in the article and I wanted to avoid repetition. An earlier version of the paragraph read "Holmes displays a strong aptitude for acting and disguise". Perhaps we could just go back to that if you all don't like "apt at"? Mezigue (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that'd be fine. We culd also just use a different synonym; "skilled at" or something like that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 09:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Your recent edit to Sherlock Holmes regarding the disagreement between "apt at" and "adept" strikes me as a good edit that improves the article and underscores the value of collaborative editing. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that is very kind of you to say. Mezigue (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The series

Look at the Romana section in re generations depicted in the series, it refers heavily to spin-off stuff, thus the series does not and cannot refer solely the TV series.

I do not understand your potent vitriol towards spin-off material. It really pisses me off when the spin-offs are slighted, spin-off material is a much valued and treasured addition to the series to a great many people, including to me, and the section is not explicitly TV series. Indeed, in a number of instances, the spin-off material is of a higher quality than the TV series itself.

Moreover, it was not given undue weight as it was only in the notes section.

Therefore, may I politely request you express your explicit loathing of spin-off material elsewhere as said material requires more of an outlet than in plot overviews as it makes up a colossal (though in some places contested) part of the Who Mythos.

Thanks,

Gotha^☭  _Talk 13:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Gotha^☭  _Talk 13:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not a matter of personal preference. The TV series is a well-known and influential work - the spin-off stuff is of interest to few. Your approach of endless accumulation of details and speculation is that of wikia and fan sites, which are made chiefly for the enjoyment of contributors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia aimed at the general public and the sort of edits you make to pages like that on regeneration makes it very difficult to read for most people. The "regeneration" page as it stand is pretty borderline actually and excessively in-universe. Mezigue (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Poor argument. Given the multifarious and rarefied topics covered by this wiki and the minute detail in which a great many, particularly ones on abstruse areas of scientific study, are covered, I say a considerable chunk, if not the majority, of this wiki is of interest to few. In fact, by virtue of its being of interest to someone at all, even more so a large and international group of people, a topic, spin-material in this case, is worthy of being recorded in more than a vague outline, such as a compact plot summary.

Moreover, does a little box with "note" written on it in superscript actually obfuscate the main body of the article or make the more interesting (to the average reader) trivia any more difficult to find? On the other hand, to find, for an unrelated example, the average height of an elephant or some such animal, or the average length of, say, a great white shark - bits of trivia of interest to a great many, I dare say - one must wade through an impenetrable mass of soporific and recondite scientific jargon in which it is thickly buried.

Think on your arguments again.

Thanks,

Gotha^☭  _Talk 17:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

talkback

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

Marcus Belby

Hi Mezigue, Can you please tell me why you removed my edit. Ayaanwardha (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ayaanwardha. A few years ago, the page List of Harry Potter characters had become a gigantic monstruosity full of every name ever mentioned in the books, films, seen on screen, on JKR's website etc plus many bogus entries from fanfic or God-knows-where. At its worst it looked like [this]. It was totally unmanageable and uncheckable, and so following discussion on the talk page (Talk:List_of_Harry_Potter_characters#Time_for_a_big_clean-up.3F it was decided to shrink it massively and only include actual characters with a role in the story. Since then, it has been a Sisyphus-like task to keep it that way as unregistered users keep trying to add everything back. Marcus Belby is a very minor character and for that reason doesn't really require a mention. Mezigue (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Mezigue...Ayaanwardha (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Gaston (comics) and the Cactus...

It plays a role much like the other pets and deserves a mention. If sourcing is a problem for you, i'll happily insert some. The plant is prevalent in many of the comics. Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A plant is not a pet. It's a prop. Mezigue (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--John (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Fires of Pompeii

I very much disagree that my Continuity section to "The Fires of Pompeii" is off topic. Many Doctor Who Wiki articles have Continuity sections that contain material that doesn't appear until later in the series (just look at those for Series 4 -- there's loads). Also, the casting of Peter Capaldi, who'd appeared in this episode as Caecilius, has been the elephant in the room ever since he was announced as the Doctor. Ergo, it's relevant to have a reference here regarding the Twelfth Doctor looking like Caecilius and why.

Ooznoz (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Ooznoz

No, the point of continuity sections is to explain references to earlier stuff contained in the plot. What happens later is off topic as it is not necessary for comprehension of the episode. This also avoids having the same stuff repeated on page after page after page. Mezigue (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you deleted a large section from "Opposition to the Iraq War"?

At least eight British opponents of the Iraq War suffered severe career detriment (one of them died) as a direct result of their opposition to the war. (And there is another one who surely belongs in that list - George Galloway).

Can you please explain why you deleted these 12000 carefully written and well referenced characters from that article?

There is no way that this important information was "off topic" or "POV-pushing material" - these people spoke up against the war and were quite severely punished for it. The world lost David Kelly, a top WMD scientist who seems to have been entirely correct in his summation of the evidence. Iraq's WMD posed no threat to anyone - indeed, were non-existent.

The omission of this information is particularly disturbing when no war-favouring British politician suffered any detriment - and at least one has made a lot of money from his reminiscences and now travels the world as a top rank statesman. AlbertAndTheLion (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course it was a mixture of off-topic and point-of-view pushing material as you know very well. Mezigue (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

All the people mentioned suffered quite severe career (and even life) detriment as a result of their opposition to the war.

I fail to see how that can possibly be off-topic.

Nor is it obvious there was anything un-encyclopaedic about the details presented. AlbertAndTheLion (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is completely obvious. You presented a case to suggest that people who opposed the war were "removed" in one way or another. Wikipedia is not there to promote conspiracy theories, but rather to present facts in a neutral and orderly manner. Please see :WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE Mezigue (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing undue or soapbox about it. All the people named suffered substantial and direct harm as a result of expressing their views.

An article on "Opposition to the Iraq War" that doesn't detail the consequence for the people who practice this is totally deficient.

The section needs some enlarging, there is at least one person missing from there. I note that you have a reputation for edit-warring. AlbertAndTheLion (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

1) "All the people named suffered substantial and direct harm as a result of expressing their views." Complete nonsense. Piers Morgan lost his job as a result of his own incompetence. Cook resigned. Short backed the war. Dr Kelly can hardly be described as an opponent of the war as I don't think he expressed any views on it. 2) "An article on "Opposition to the Iraq War" that doesn't detail the consequence for the people who practice this is totally deficient." Nonsense. The point of the article is to detail the depth of opposition to this war globally, not to detail what you perceive to be the consequences for opponents in the UK. 3) I doubt that I have any reputation at all. Mezigue (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

John le Carré content removal

Your vague excuses for your content removal leads me to ask whether you work for the PR department of the United States? You appear to have a well established history of being a nuisance; if you don't cease then i will report your disruptive editing with the aim of having you blocked.--58.106.226.75 (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You have been reported here for your continued disruptions.--58.106.226.75 (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Two editors have reverted you and explained why, so stop your edit-warring. As you have also now found out, trying to bully your way by making threats and misleading vandalism reports does not work on Wikipedia. Now if you want to contribute constructively, I suggest you read: WP:VERIFY, WP:VAGUE and if you have time WP:CIVIL. PS: asking someone whether they work for the PR department of the US will have you laughed at not just on Wikipedia but generally in life. All the best. Mezigue (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Companion (Doctor Who)

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm just wondering why you reverted my edit on the 'Companion (Doctor Who)' page? Director D (The Creator of Water Man) (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It seemed premature. Mezigue (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok anyway someone changed it back

--Director D (The Creator of Water Man) (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Blood libel

Did you bother to read the edit summary or look at the context before you reverted the edit? I don't think so, because the change you undid fixed a quotation from a source. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you. 66.87.114.210 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ian McDiarmid

Hi. I meant to say "subjective" view. Doesn't really matter to me if it stays, but in the current structure it reads as a commentary on McDiarmid's performance, rather than as an adjective describing the character, which is what I think the intent is. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Well I have explained my reasoning on the talk page there. To be honest it hadn't occured to me the phrase could be misread that way. Mezigue (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm 46.37.55.80. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Smith and Jones (Doctor Who) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. 46.37.55.80 (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)