Discussion Utilisateur:Mais oui

Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

©éréales Kille® | |☺ 26 août 2005 à 10:07 (CEST)

Sommaire 1 Whit r ye all aboot? 2 Multiple nations inside UK 3 Thanks 4 Catégorie 5 multibandeau... 6 Écosse 7 Catégorie:Université britannique 8 Article indépendance de l'Écosse 9 traduction please

[modifier] Whit r ye all aboot?

Hi Mais oui, you come along and change my modifications and then when I replace them with a compromise solution, you go running and crying "vandalism" without even contacting me first. I don't know where you're from in the old country but I'd call that cowardly. Perhaps you might try to explain yourself? PetetheJock 19 juillet 2006 à 16:55 (CEST)

---

Faire une rapport de "vandalisme" sans me contacter d'abord, quand je faisais les mêmes types de modifications que toi, après avoir allégrement revoquer mes modifications, n'était ni courtois, ni respectueux. Tu peut te cacher derrière des règles si tu veux mais tu dois t'interroger sur ton comportement... PetetheJock 19 juillet 2006 à 17:08 (CEST)

---

Sorry, I've just seen that you've reduced your French-speaking capability from 2 to 1 so I'll translate the above. To post a vandalism report, without first contacting me and given that I was carrying out the same sorts of modifications as you, and after you had blithly revoked my previous modifications, was neither courteous nor respectful. You may hide behind the rules if you wish but you ought to question your behaviour... PetetheJock 19 juillet 2006 à 17:15 (CEST)

---

Mais oui, there is no consensus, unfortunately. It's for that reason that we're in the process of trying to get together a working group to discuss the issue of nationality, concentrating on the situation in the UK. If you might consider steering clear of the nationality issue for the moment and helping us in these discussions, then that would be good. PetetheJock 19 juillet 2006 à 17:36 (CEST)

---

I should add that steering clear of the nationality issue only refers to the period after England and Scotland united to become Great Britain in 1707. Before then one can correctly talk of English and Scottish nationality (although as you are no doubt well aware it gets hazier the further you go back in time...). I too, except for the changes I made earlier today, have decided in the last couple of days to stick to correcting obvious non-controversial errors such as talking of an English prime minister or army after 1707, while we sort this whole can of worms out. PetetheJock 19 juillet 2006 à 17:54 (CEST)

---

The other exception being sport of course, for those sports where the participants generally represent at the highest level England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland/Ireland rather than the UK (or Great Britain and Northern Ireland as e.g. the national athletics team likes to be known). PetetheJock 19 juillet 2006 à 17:59 (CEST)

[modifier] Multiple nations inside UK

I've just got your message. What I understand is that PetetheJoke is removing any reference to Scottish or Welsh (or others) nationality for, I assume, people born after various Acts of Union. On the French Wikipédia, it should probably be considered as vandalism as well, as categories like [[Catégorie:Personnalité normande]] or [[Catégorie:Personnalité bretonne]] exist.

It is not stopped because, I suppose, most French are, consciently or not, anglophobic and makes lots of confusion between England, Great Britain and United Kingdom. You can't imagine how many times I've seen England or English used in place of United Kingdom or British. Queen Elisabeth II is always known as la Reine d'Angleterre but never as la Reine du Royaume-Uni, even if England haven't been an independant country for almost 3 centuries. Helldjinn 21 juillet 2006 à 11:32 (CEST)

I know anglophobia is no excuse, but I think it's the explanation. I'll try to do what I can to make everything back as it was. For sure learning Italian should help for French. I've been in Italy last month (for the first time in my life), I've never learnt any Italian but could understand most of the written things. Have a nice rest :) Helldjinn 21 juillet 2006 à 14:56 (CEST)

[modifier] Thanks

Just a quick thank you (in English, since I'm lazy) for the welcome. =D Lottieicf 23 juillet 2006 à 04:19 (CEST)

[modifier] Catégorie

Bonsoir Mais oui

Créer des catégories "pilote irlandais", "pilotes écossais", "pilote anglais" est une bonne idée. Mais je ne vois pas en quoi cela implique de vider de sa substance la catégorie "pilote britannique". Les deux catégories peuvent très bien cohabiter tu ne crois pas? Woodcote 24 juillet 2006 à 00:53 (CEST)

[modifier] multibandeau...

Bonjour,

Avant de déclencher une guerre du multibandeau, j'aimerais justifier mes suppressions d'hier en les commentant :

1. Quel rapport peuvent bien avoir Matthew Baillie ou William Aiton avec l'Écosse à part le fait d'y nés ! Si on commence à ajouter les bandeaux relatifs aux pays de naissance, cela ne va pas finir. D'autant qu'il s'agit d'un bandeau régional. Pourquoi pas alors celui du Royaume-Uni, celui de l'Europe (après tout l'Écosse est en Europe)... Où cela va-t-il s'arrêter ?
2. Je serais la première à voir l'intérêt d'un tel bandeau si X ou Y avaient réellement contribué à la constitution, l'audience ou la richesse de l'Écosse. Le fait d'être né quelque part est pour le moins étroit.
3. Et puis, pour un scientifique, l'important est sa carrière, ses découvertes et ses publications : quelqu'un né en Écosse, qui fait une partie de sa carrière à Londres avant de partir en Australie et de revenir mourrir en Écosse a droit à combien de bandeau ? Un ? Deux ? Tous ?
4. Mais en mettant des bandeaux, comme en mettant des catégories, on a l'impression de faire quelque chose de vachement utile. Sauf qu'il faudrait procéder avec un peu de discernement. De plus, sur des articles très réduits en taille, on voit plus les bandeaux que le contenu.
5. La science en Écosse vous intéresse ? Tant mieux, vous n'avez plus qu'à réaliser un article sur ce sujet (intéressant compte tenu du nombre de scientifique venu de cette région). Il sera bien plus utile et profitable qu'un bandeau.
6. Cela fait des mois (pour ne pas dire des années) que je me bat contre ces dérives oscillant en fierté régionale et nationalisme à ras les paquerettes, désolée que cela retombe sur vous, mais sans explications convaincantes de votre part, je révoquerais tout ajout de cette sorte. Bonne journée.--Valérie 24 juillet 2006 à 07:58 (CEST)

[modifier] Écosse

Bonjour,
Deux petites questions :

• pourquoi avoir effacé la phrase « L'Écosse, avec l'Irlande, est le pays qui détient le plus fort taux de rousseur (cheveux roux) au monde » de l'article Écosse ?
• pourquoi avoir dit qu'il s'agit d'un revert dans le champ de justification des modifications ?

Dans l'attente d'une réponse de ta part...

Wooops, sorry, I didn't realise your level in French (I just read your user page). I was wondering why you deleted “L'Écosse, avec l'Irlande, est le pays qui détient le plus fort taux de rousseur (cheveux roux) au monde” from the Écosse (Scotland) article and why you indicated you were reverting to a previous version of the article when it was not the case... Thank you in advance for your kind reply. --Sixsous 10 août 2006 à 22:51 (CEST)

Thank you so much for you charming answer. I hope you realised I did sign my previous comment. May I suggest a visit on the rasoir d'Hanlon article, a golden rule you might not have known about?

I'm afraid the “unencyclopaedic”, “trivia”, etc. critera is rather subjective, especially for this information. As for sources, I'll refer you to the Roux (couleur) page, unless of course you prefer to visit the English version, links you might have been well-inspired to visit before erasing any content. Following your own logic, I'd have to delete almost all the article given all the “unsourced” facts that are written there.

Besides, you still didn't answer my second query : why did you indicate you were reverting to a previous version of the article when it wasn't the case?

I'd also be extremely grateful if you would stop taking such an aggressive, arrogant, pedantic, contemptuous and trollistic tone. As they say here: « on n'attrape pas des mouches avec du vinaigre ». Before treating me like some kind of uneducated beginner on Wikipedia, were you wise enough to at least check my contribution list? I happen to know almost by heart the Wikipédia:Ce que Wikipédia n'est pas page so I find having you brandishing it under my nose as some kind of magic wand as being rather ridiculous: I have the decency of at least indicating where to look at in this very page. Well, perhaps I should treat you in the same fashion and urge you to read Wikipédia:Ne mordez pas les nouveaux, Wikipédia:Règles de savoir-vivre or Wikipédia:Ne pas adopter une attitude agressive? Somehow you seem to have missed those.

Oh, one last detail: please be as kind as to write your the Résumé field in French. I doubt you'll find it very respectful if I was to write my own justifications in French on the English Wikipedia.

Should you have answered nicely, I might have concurred with you in your decision. Now I hope you'll excuse me for thwarting your efforts on this ludicrous matter. --Sixsous 10 août 2006 à 23:47 (CEST)

I guess I also owe you an apology for my last message. It looks like there are a few points which weren't clear on both sides and generated into this discussion. I'd therefore like to take this opportunity to explain them (and to apologise in advance for the very long reply, I hope you have the time to read this):

• The tone on the French Wikipedia in general is rather cordial and informal. In French, to speak very formally in a situation it's uncalled for is considered rather aggressive. The reasons are rather difficult to explain but I'll try nevertheless (sorry if you already know about this): not unlike English but in a more subtle way, the way you speak reflects on your position and the way you perceive the talker, and is a way of indication of the social distance between two persons. Wikipedia being a collaborative project, but without a hierarchy and in which most persons don't know each other, the social status factor in speech doesn't really apply: sometimes I express myself to professors in Wikipedia in a fashion in which they would feel deeply offended in most other situations; and they write to me in what would be considered improper given the status difference. In “real life” (I can't think of another expression), as I owe them more respect because they are older and more experienced, and because there is a status difference between a student and a professor, I'd be more formal while when they refer to me they would be more relaxed. On Wikipedia, the global is rather neutral, but by playing with words, you can still shift between registers: for example, taking a more informal approach when you want to be friendly, or a more formal tone when needed, like in apologies. In this context, to take a too formal tone creates a psychological distance and implies you treat your interlocutor as a stranger on all levels: intelligence, social status, education level, etc. When in a conversation the interlocutors suddenly switch from “tu” to “vous”, it's a very bad sign. When I asked you my question, I was slightly informal, just enough to hint that I didn't mind about your modifications and just wanted a short explanation. I expected an answer in the same form but I received from you an extremely formal reply, which translates immediately to a French mind as "I am better than you are, I am more intelligent, so shut up and let me do what I'm doing". I didn't even realise by then that the message was in English. Now that I read again your message (and switched back to my “English mode”), the tone was not as aggressive as I thought it was on the moment. I realise I couldn't have expected you to know this aspect of French civilisation. I think I stayed for too long in France and I still have to decontaminate my mind of their special way of seeing and understanding things (let's say the Frenchmen are more focalised on guessing the implications because of how things are said rather than what is actually said)...

• In fact my main query was more “Why did you write 'rv' in the Edit summary” (in the French Wikipedia it is the abbreviation for “revert”). I thought that either you made a mistake, either you didn't knew what the term meant. THIS was what was bothering me in the first place.

• I always sign my messages, however I use the button in the edit window (I often have to switch from different keyboard types, and it takes too long to look every time for the “~” character) and in some occasions it doesn't seem to work, or to give strange results (sometimes the signature is inserted elsewhere: once, in a vote, it caused me some serious trouble). So yes, technically speaking the first message was not signed and I should have checked that the “--~~~~” did properly appear in the window before sending it: my most sincere appologies on this matter. The second message I sent and your first seemed to have criss-crossed (sorry, I don't know the term).

Now, down to the core of the problem:

• I'd just like to precise that I wasn't the one who brought this information on the page. I have no special interest in either keeping it or erasing it.
• Yes, the “red head” thing shouldn't be in the introduction of the article. I definitely agree.
• Being myself a scientist and a researcher, I understand probably more than most participants the need for sources and I certainly wouldn't dream of using a Wikipedia article to do so. There is one exception however: when the Wikipedia source cited contains itself serious sources. Before I delete any information, I always check the Wikipedia articles which are more specialised in the subject to see if the sources are at least cited there. That was what I was implying when I urged you to check the red hair page.
• Though I am mainly a chemist, when I was still studying in France I met and discussed often with a few students and researchers in biology and genetics. Now, what I'm about to say will probably shock you: most were only interested in Ireland, and especially Scotland because of the red-heir factor! It is of a great interest to geneticists and sociologists to understand why over 40 % of a population can still carry a recessive gene and how it can still be active in 13 % of the population when Scotland and Ireland are supposed to have been invaded several times and mixed with many other populations. Therefore, I wouldn't go as far as to say it is just “trivia”.
• Otherwise, in France, Scotland is mainly renown for golf, bagpipes, Nessie and kilts, though some more "cultivated" Frenchmen may even know about haggis and haunted castles. Oh yeah, ever since that movie with Christophe Lambert and that other one with Mel Gibson, most even know about Highlanders (at least the term: they'd be surprised to see what it refers to nowadays) and William Wallace! They also associate Scotland (but more Ireland) with, errr... well, red heir. Though my hair is brown and I lived most of my life in France and Arabia, I have a red beard and an Irish name. In France, I keep hearing always the same question: "You're from Scotland, aren't you? Oh no? I never would have guessed from your name and your beard". It saddens me to admit it, but Frenchmen can sometimes be soooo provincial... My personal theory is that they cancelled the Auld Alliance in 1903 only because they had completely forgotten about it.

Well, I guess our argument is nothing more than a « tempête dans un verre d'eau » and a misunderstating. One again, I'm sorry for the very long message. I just wanted things to be clear but I might have done a lot of rambling.
The Faslane and the Trident fleet removal does seem rather strange. But shouldn't you create a section about the military in Scotland in the article? I think there is quite a lot to say and this information would fit in nicely. --Sixsous 11 août 2006 à 15:52 (CEST)

Quite a coincidence indeed! In France they would say « Les grands esprits se rencontrent » (great minds meet themselves). The article seems promising. I might come to translate it into French once it matures a bit.

So you lived some time in Touraine? Lucky you! Nice place, very nice people (rare enough in France to mention), beautiful landscapes, cities and castles. I lived there for a few months and I miss those days. Doesn't compare with Scotland of course, but it has its charms.

Well, it was a pleasure making your acquaintance and I hope you have no hard feelings on our little skirmish, for I assure you I have none. --Sixsous 12 août 2006 à 00:53 (CEST)

[modifier] Catégorie:Université britannique

Salut, je suis pas d'accord pour catégoriser les universités britanniques en sous-catégories anglaises, écossaises, nord-irlandaises ou galloises. (et en surtout pour vider Catégorie:Université britannique). La catégorie mère n'est pas surpeuplée donc le besoin de sous catégories ne se fait pas sentir.
De plus, je remarque que depuis que tu es sur Wikipédié, tu ne fais pratiquement QUE de la recatégorisation par rapport aux nations du Royaume-Uni ou tu utilises (voire abuses) du bandeau Portail:Écosse pour les articles qui ont rapport plus ou moins direct avec cette nation. Ca ressemble de plus en plus à une certaine idéologie que tu veux faire passer ici plutot qu'à de vrais apports encyclopédiques. D'autres contributeurs comme Woodcote ou Valérie75 t'ont déjà dit que ça les surprenait... mais je n'ai pas vraiment vu de réponse. Est-ce que tu pourrais t'expliquer un peu plus ? Merci. Stéphane 18 août 2006 à 10:28 (CEST)

Oui. Mais pas en francais!! --Mais oui 18 août 2006 à 10:30 (CEST)

Avant de continuer, pourrais-tu expliquer pourquoi tu retires TOUTES les références au Royaume-Uni ou à "britannique" dans les articles que tu modifies ?

Oui. Mais pas en francais!! (fr-1) --Mais oui 18 août 2006 à 12:42 (CEST)

Please see previous discussion: Discussion_Utilisateur:Mais_oui#Multiple_nations_inside_UK. Thanks. --Mais oui 18 août 2006 à 12:47 (CEST)

First of all, I don't understand why people who cannot speak French want to write on the French-speaking Wikipedia. If you cannot explain or defend in French your contributions here... then, in my opinion, you shouldn't be here. Not everybody speaks English here and every user should be able, at least, to communicate in French... but that's another problem.

The previous discussion you mentionned doesn't give any answer. You don't explain why you remove every reference to "British" or "UK" and replace it by English/Scottish/Welsh/North-irish only. British is the nationality, whether you like it or not. And in biographies in the French-speaking Wikipedia, the nationality has to be given. The origin (state/region/city/county/constituent country) can be precised if necessary but the nationality HAS to be given. The biography of an English/Scottish/Welsh/N-Irish should begin by "XXX est un YYY britannique originaire d'Angleterre/Écosse/Pays de Galles/Irlande du Nord". By removing "British/britannique" everywhere, you just remove an information and you mislead French-speaking readers who often don't precisely know the difference between UK and the constituent countries. In some case (Sean Connery for exemple), where being Scottish is a part of his identity, you should write a paragraph to describe his links with Scotland but if we want to be NPOV, what must be written as an introduction should be : "Thomas Sean Connery est un acteur britannique né en Écosse..." or "Thomas Sean Connery est un acteur britannique originaire Écosse..." and then, you add something like en:Sean Connery#Political causes. Removing the reference to the UK (as you did) is surely not the solution !

The other problem is for Categories. You always sub-categorise in constituent countries, even if the mother category (sorry, I don't know if that's correct name in English), doesn't require this sub-catgorisation. And, for exemple in Catégorie:Université par pays, you put Catégorie:Université anglaise, Catégorie:Université galloise, Catégorie:Université écossaise at the same level as Catégorie:Université belge or Catégorie:Université allemande. That is not correct. If we accept the sub-categorisation in constituent countries (which still has to be discussed), the main entry in "Categories by country" is Royaume-Uni/britannique and NOT "gallois/écossais/anglais/nord-irlandais" (for football, it's another case).

Another problem, that has already been mentionned by Valérie (but you didn't give any answer), is the way you use the Modèle:Portail Écosse. You use it for every article that has a vague link with Scotland. I don't know if you understand what she said but, to sum-up, adding the template doesn't bring any information. If you want to describe sciences in Scotland, then create Science en Écosse, it will be much more benefic than a template ! Being born in Scotland doesn't mean you did something for Scotland. Being born in Scotland doesn't mean you have studied/worked in Scotland or even doesn't mean you are still Scottish or British. There is nothing in Matthew Baillie's and William Aiton's biography which justifies the Template {{Portail Écosse}}. You did the same thing with Aéroport d'Édimbourg for example. Where is the justification of Modèle:Portail Écosse ? And why not Modèle:Portail Royaume-Uni or Modèle:Portail Europe ? I don't think you would add the Template Scotland the same way on the English speaking wikipedia, so why are you doing this here ? Can you give some explanation ?

So, could you stop doing this kind of modifications and could you give me some explanations ? Could you also ask for others opinions on Portail:Royaume-Uni, Écosse or on the bistrot for example. Doing these modifications alone, single-handedly, whereas no decision has been taken is surely not the best way to build an encyclopedy.

Merci pour vos futures réponses et bonne fin de soirée. Stéphane 20 août 2006 à 23:12 (CEST)

[modifier] Article indépendance de l'Écosse

Pourrais tu donner ton avis là s'il te plait? Merci beaucoup. Ayack - ᛞᛁᛋᚲᚢᛏᛖᚱ 15 septembre 2006 à 18:36 (CEST)

[modifier] traduction please

Bonjour, Vous ètes intervenu au moins une fois sur cet article Haute trahison. J'ai développé cet article en droit français mais, étant assez rétif à l'anglais (sorry) je serais très honoré que vous acceptiez de traduire l'article anglais correspondant High treason pour enrichir l'article français (et peut être réciproquement). Merci. Cordiales salutations. alain darles (d) 22 février 2008 à 04:32 (CET)