User talk:Gautier lebon

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

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).


Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. Glad to hear that we have a new arricval who is keen to work on magic articles. I've offered some suggestions for your Peter Marvey article (see edits and also my post at the Wikiproject talk page). Circusandmagicfan (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

AF 447[edit]

Your comment on PB666 is in block quote along with my comment and a request for help from PB666 and which is on talkpage of PB666 .

Thank you for your recent contribution to the discussion. Although I am a newcomer, I'd like to say that I think that you are right, and that your edits are most appropriate. I hope that everybody else agrees. I've added the same material to the French version, for some reason nobody else had yet gotten around to it!--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ditto as Gautier lebon. From a beginner: need help in clarifying the difference between two link for English version of BEA report of July 2, 2009, I posted on AF447 talk page (and in Ext link on main page I revised to the direct link). The direct link, I have posted seems to be the one that you have shown by reference arrow but without mention what it is pointing to.

Let us journey on. Patelurology2 (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I see you added a few mentions of Valence in 2010 America's Cup [1] [2] which I've now modified [3]. I appreciate Valence is used in French and English may not be your first language so it's understandable if you made a mistake, but just to let you know, the correct spelling is Valencia in English. While we sometimes accept alternative spellings per WP:ENGVAR I don't believe Valence is a common spelling in English as it isn't mentioned in the article on the place nor does Valence mention Valencia. (In any case, articles need to be internally consistent and it already uses Valencia.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Faster than the wind[edit]

Gautier, please excuse me if this is not the appropriate place to post this ... I am new to WP and don't know if here there is the equivalent of PMs(private messages). I just thought you might want to check out The description at the top of the blog pretty much spells out our project.

ThinAirDesigns (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear ThinAir, yes, this is the medium used for 1-1 communications, although they are accessible to all. Thank you very much for the reference, it is most helpful and I will integrate it, at the appropriate time. I note that you have not yet created your own user page and talk page. I will post a message to your talk page, and I would recommend that you create a your user page.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gautier. Just wanted to thank you for your incredible efforts in the field of ... ... we'll just call it "education" on the Sailing Faster than the Wind page. Stories of your patience and tact will become legend. Quite soon it will become a bit easier for you in some ways as NALSA.ORG will ratify a ddwfttw speed record and folks will have a hard time arguing that this doesn't meet WP standards. Meanwhile welcome to our world. :-) (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gautier, the Blackbird team is only a few days away now from receiving their ratified NALSA record for nearly 3x the speed of the wind DDW. Just as Greenbird has a Wikipedia entry, Blackbird likely warrants one as well given the quantity of press the Blackbird has attracted. I know you have put a lot of effort into the sailing pages (and other) so I don't want to seem to be asking too much of your time, but since you are so familier with Wikipedia standards and the topic would you be willing to review any such page before it's published for compliance and of course just content and format suggestions? If you are too busy or otherwise uninterested I understand totally. Thanks -- please contact me at [my wikipedia username]@[that company that Steve Case founded].com ThinAirDesigns (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi: I made another change to the DDWFTTW page. I upgraded Bauer's claim in that is paper actually mentions strong direct evidence that he did go faster than the wind. Not independently verified, but direct strong evidence from a credible source. Just as credible as, for example, our self-roported claim that we made a robot that walked 65 km without touch by a human hand. We had no officiators. But it happened. We reported it. And no one should have reason to doubt us. So I don't doubt Bauer. So I changed one sentence in the DDWFTTW section. - Andy ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyRuina (talkcontribs) 10:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gautier. You have recently cleaned up some OR in the article: But why did you leave this in the article: "...the cart accelerates direct down-wind to near wind speed with its rotor acting as a wind-driven turbine driving the wheels..." This is wrong, as far as the downwind-runs of the Blackbird are concerned. The BB has ratchet hubs that prevent the rotor from driving the wheels. The rotor never acts as a turbine, which is also obvious from the videos.--Eyytee (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I think that the various references support the current text, but if this is not the case, then of course the text could be changed. Could you point to the specific references that say what you say above?--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The ratchet hubs are mentioned in many places on the project blog:
Even if it is not their primary purpose, they also prevent the rotor from turning the wheels, while allowing the wheels to turn the rotor. The builders explained many times that the wheels always turn the rotor in the downwind case:
Rick Cavallaro describing the self start: "The propeller is in a battle between the wind and the gearing to the wheels. As the wind tries to push the cart downwind, the wheels try to turn the prop CW (viewed from the rear)." This consistent with the videos, where the blades a clearly set to rotate CCW as a trubine given a relative tailwind. But they rotate CW because the torque from the wheels is greater: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyytee (talkcontribs) 15:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm snowed under with other stuff right now and won't be able to edit the article until mid-January. Can you take care of it? But please add the references you refer to above. --Gautier lebon (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your patient edits and my apology[edit]

This is a compliment on your diplomatic and persistent work on the Sailing article. I made a mistake questioning that a boat could sail faster than the wind.[4] Your dispassioned and reasoned approach was helpful in finally leading me to understand the point. You did good work here, and hence

Peace Barnstar 6.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For holding to the truth cautiously enough to make it heard. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi: I am HTML illiterate. If you have questions or comments on my change to your DDFTTW page please contact me by email: — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyRuina (talkcontribs) 20:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Richard I of England#Sexuality[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your contributions to the article on Richard. In short, I think what you've added is a good start, but as the subject of Richard's sexuality has generated a lot of discussion in the past, I think it would be best to discuss how to approach it on the talk page. As you seem to have the Flori book and were the one who added the section, your opinion on the matter would be very welcome. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I saw that and added a post on the talk page, describing what I proposed. I got no reactions, so I proceeded. I will now add another post on the talk page.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems your original post slipped under the radar, sorry about that. I've asked about half a dozen people who've contributed to the article or the talk page to chip in if they wish, so hopefully this will provide more discussion. Plus it's easier to have an opinion on something that's been written than a concept, so that may aid feedback. Nev1 (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Peter_Marvey_(illusionist).png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Peter_Marvey_(illusionist).png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I did obtain permission for the Peter Marvey picture and have forwarded it as explained above. The other images that I uploaded (on a totally different page) were created by me.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

International Bureau of Education[edit]


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International Bureau of Education, and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the material in question is in the public domain and thus can be reproduced in Wikipedia. I will verify whether that is the case and modify or remove the material as required.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving your comments[edit]

I am moving some of your comments on the SFTTW talk page as I am concerned that my needed apology will be made unclear. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have found this impossible to do neatly. But I really think one should not intersperse ones remarks sentence by sentence into another's. It has the effect of crowding out the other person, of shouting them down. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right. In retropect, it might have been better to create a new section where I summarized the arguments, and then presented my counter arguments. As you saw, I did do that a couple of times, but maybe it should always have been done that way. I apologize for the inconvenience and will endeavour to do better next time.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

De Volkskrant[edit]

Dear Gautier Lebon,

Whenever you might think my contribution is PVO on Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, please remember that this Dutch newspaper is just one of the best quality newspapers in Holland, you might not be able to read the text in the original, but the news-message is only published when all those sources named in the article have been checked and double checked. Those details offer you the possibility to check the details by yourself: whether this "accusation" might be right or wrong. TAKING THE DETAILS AWAY, LOOKS LIKE A COVER-UP. I've seen a reportage on this matter on television, from a Japanese woman, that has been in the middle of this. she felt her face burning, but nobody also doctors could or would not tell her what there was happening, six months later, now she knows, and does not expect to live a long life anymore... I did not put the url into the article, could have done that though. 1947enkidu (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Enkidu, the issue is not the reliability, it is the level of detail. It suffices to give a summary with a citation to the newpaper you cite above. By the way, I can read Dutch with some difficulty, and I do understand what the title of the newpaper means.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Gautier
Taking all detail away, just claiming that there are opposing views: WITHOUT the addition to any references of those opposing views... that I find PVO.
Of course the Japanese government will deny something at least. The findings were not complete, were "not fit for publication". They knew enough, and had more than enough reasons to warn the people there, more than enough reasons to take them out of the way. But the bureaucracy prevailed. I suspect those people in Namie did not get any KJ-tablets to protect their thyroid glands. there's one rule all governments apply: Do not make the people over concerned...
B.T.W. Do you think the government in American, the UK, Holland, Belgium (or everywhere else...) would behave differently ? Of course this thought is very PVO already.
In the mean time in Holland a new nuclear reactor is planned to be built, but since a few months nothing is heard about it anymore. would they have learned some lessons from Fukushima, or are they awaiting better times, to push it through
The Japanese are still willing to help the Vietnamese government to built a new series of nuclear reactors, not very different from the Fukushima-design... Would that be really safe ? or is earning money more important ? 1947enkidu (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


...for your contribution to the article Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster!Chrisrus (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Some tips to help you out![edit]

Hi Gautier lebon, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:Gautier lebon/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talkstalk!) 13:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

How references work[edit]

Simple references[edit]

These require two parts;

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [ Tea website] </ref>
b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";
== References ==

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Gautier lebon/reftest and try it out.

Named references[edit]

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 

Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates[edit]

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Here's a little bit of magic which can save you an awful lot of time and effort![edit]

You might want to consider using this tool - (tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/ - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well all by itself. For those it can;t do by itself, it gives you a pull-down (or up) menu of templates to choose from, which you can then fill in manually. Often the problem is "No title found" - sometimes the title is obvious (especially if it's a pdf), bit, if not, just open the page yourself and choose soemthing appropriate if there's not already a clear title there. Happy editing! Pesky (talkstalk!) 13:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


Hi Gautier,

the work was done almost unintended,

but I'm aware that the work on the Fukushima crisis is something that is disliked by a lot of people. We have to be aware of a lot of vandalism. And in this way I keep a close look to all what is happening. In this way I discovered, that the section on unskilled people was erased... That section raised already a lot of opposition, but the fact alone should raise more questions about the working conditions there... Now I found another piece of news about dorms just outside the actual site of the pnt, with high radiation levels but the people sleeping there, are not paid extra, because TEPCO, Toshiba and others point to eachother when it comes to responsibility... that helps when you do not want to pay the people according to the regulations... 1947enkidu (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Meermin slave mutiny's GA[edit]

It passed! Whoopeeee! Pesky (talkstalk!) 13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Bravo, I'm pleased that your hard work payed off.--Gautier lebon (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster[edit]

Can you specify what you mean with gramatically incorrect or simply correct ? Not perhaps on the entry should stand something about total death numbers also for quake and tsunami hitting most on Fukushima see picture from myself later in article. The definitions of catastrophe also in Wikipedia clearly nomrmally no catatstrophe with 0 deaths and to less damge from nuclear desaster compared. Kay Uwe Böhm (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant gramatically incorrect, and hard-to-understand English. I have now added a new paragraph to the introduction, summarizing the casualties section.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Entry from Gautier lebon added later at later place and longer not bad mistake not only quake mainly tsunami killed some workers some found 3 weeks later in turbine house and some collapsing... significant not explained. "There were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures, but a few of the plant's workers were severly injured or killed by the disaster conditions resulting from the earthquake. At least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have been estimated at between 100 and 1000 (much less than the approximately 20,000 people killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami). However the radiation exposure resulting from the accident for most people living in Fukushima is so small compared to background radiation that it may be impossible to find statistically significant evidence of increases in cancer. But fear of ionizing radiation could have long-term psychological effects on a large portion of the population in the contaminated areas."

You did left new rentry "exactly values in tables later" and all the tables 2 about amounts and one for water purification, 2 charts showing decrease in water/air, one picture where tsunami hit, corerection for ankles that not confirmed and before values as high as chernobyl new intial values and about one tenth. Missing now that before wrong information and right at the beginning total death amount also for quake+tsunami and explanation why called catastrophe under governmet definition without deaths and this is not a german lead question with refernece on definition german Wikipedia if not in english Wikipedia but to be transfered like all tables and charts and pictures before. I don`saw now "but complex" nonsense citation at beginning like wrong ankles info. Also missing information about tsunami wall 3.12m asked 5.7m build reference Spektrum Wissenschaften Artikel and not only mSv values for ankles instead 2-3Sv 2000-6000mSv before without "not confirmed" and no explanation what 250mSv means just +1% cancer risk not cancer just some workers. Always another one just deleteting instead adding Spektrum Reference article... for download already talked. Information about situation was wrong there ? Also informing about mass of wrong information was going around proofed by Wikipedia itself german and english with extra section in german wikipedia also english W. to be opend also by yourself ? (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC) (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment. It is not necessary to add references in the introduction if the text summarized materiel elsewhere in the article that is properly referenced. Others, not I, made the comments and deletions that you refer to above.--Gautier lebon (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule for using only englisch references and called physic book is longtime standard reference. IN EVERY CASE 250msV YEARLY ARE MUCH TO MUCH AND WRONG just lower maximum danger value for one time radiation yearly Level A 9 mSv Level B 15mSv. All datas are correct also other part for good healing chances added like Areva Help Link and table and 2 fully referenced tables for summarized iodine/caesium in comparision from german WP and 4 pictures in main article. What is from standard teaching books looks like maybe vandalism ? (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the above comment should be posted to the Fukushim page, not this page. Second, indeed thre is no rule for using only Englishp-language references, but the information that you wish to add is readily available in English-language references, so there is no reason to use a non-English-language reference. What is vandalism is adding text that is not comprehensible English. If you looked up the information in an English-language book, then it would be easier for you to add text that can be understood by English-language speakers.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Blackbird image.gif[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blackbird image.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have written permission from the author of the photograph and have sent that to Permissions, as I did for the existing Blackbird picture. I expect that Permissions will certify shortly that copyright permission was indeed granted, so everything should be OK. I have posted this same comment to the discussion cited above.--Gautier lebon (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Theories of humor [edit]

I agree with your concerns on the talk page about the editor contributing a new section sourced only to his own thesis. That editor is now using IPs (two definite, two more almost certain, and a fifth likely, in my opinion) to support his theory and/or attack others. A real mess. Meters (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Gautier lebon. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Five Elements of Humor[edit]

Is the entry about Zac Toa at Theories of Humor an example of Original Research? Why is this acceptable, given that similar entries in the article have been deleted? Editors deleted the entry by an established scholar in the field, who has now been invited to speak at a humor conference having Daniel C. Dennett and John Morreall as the keynote speakers. If Five Elements is not Original Research, then can the other deleted theory return? Cdg1072 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill[edit]

Hi, Gautier lebon. You have been an active editor on Deepwater Horizon oil spill and/or its related articles. During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up that article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible by Template:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Gautier lebon. You asked some time ago at my talk page if there are any specific issues that I would like you to review. Actually the 'Legal aspects and settlements' has been expanded rapidly during some last weeks, including addition of new subsections, and I would like to ask you to give a look to this. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inherited (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) 18:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion requests[edit]

Your two requests at 3O, where I am a regular volunteer, have been removed because there has not been thorough talk page discussion about them between you and the other editor as required by all forms of mediated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia. Consider my suggestions made here if the other editor will not discuss. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I replied to you on the talk page of the Fukushima accident, I don't know why the other party is ignoring you. (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Heads up again, I replied on the talk page of Fukushima accident. (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Gautier,

J'allais ecrire ça en français, mais comme vous avez mis un bandeau en (native speaker) sur votre page d'utilisateur, je continue en anglais.

Thanks for your contributions to Fukushima 1 and 2. While making a couple of small contributions there, I noticed a couple of sentences that I was 99% certain were written by a French native speaker with an excellent, but not quite native, command of English. I'm talking about this:

This emission of radioactivity into the sea represens the most important individual emission of artificial radioactivity into the sea ever observed.

The tip-off, was not the minor typo but the use of important to mean large. This is so typically French, I was virtually certain of its origin. When I saw your name in the history, I felt vindicated. So, I was rather surprised to find on your talk page, the language levels you list inverted from the sense I assumed. Your bio shows you lived all over--including some places I have--and maybe your English is so informed by your French, that sometimes they mix and you forget which is which. It's not a big deal, and I'll change it to large. English important just doesn't have that secondary sense that the French important has (in fact, en important theoretically could mean particularly small, as long as it was significatif).

Having said that, your English is better than my French, so maybe I can call on you for help from time to time? Can you have a look at fr:Vemma--I'm sure you'll hear my American "accent" in the article, although I hope my grammar is at least correct. Feel free to fix it, or just let me know if you see anything that seems "off" there.

Oh, by the way: since you're interested in Fukushima, do you know about the great blog Ex-skf? It's dedicated to the topic, and he (or she) always has the latest. I used some of the sources quoted in the Feb. 7 post about TEPCO under-reporting radiation levels as sources in my recent edits on the two WP articles on Fukushima.

Happy editing, et bonne continuation! Avec amitiés, Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I see now (from reading above) that we may have crossed paths on AF 447 as well as fr:AF 447.  :-) Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gautier,
Yes, I think I've seen some of the BEA reports that they've issued in English, and they make exactly that kind of mistake--very good, but not quite perfect, English. Look forward to working with you on various projects. I read some Italian articles from time to time, and understand them just fine, but my level of Italian writing isn't good enough to contribute. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Forces on sails[edit]

I invite you to look at the discussion at Talk:Forces on sails#Expert attention and elsewhere in the Talk page, which I have just tied to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing. There are two parallel efforts, one in the main article and one in the sandbox. It appears that the two editors are unlikely to reach a consensus as to which approach is more appropriate to WP:MOS. It would help, if other editors would look at both efforts and comment at the Reorganization? section. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)